The Changing Face of Special Educational Needs

Impact and implications for SENCOs, teachers and their schools

Alison Ekins

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317484653
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación general

Fully revised with the requirements of the 2014 new SEN Code of Practice, this second edition of The Changing Face of Special Educational Needs shows teachers, SENCOs and students in teacher training how to respond to the rapidly changing context of special education. This highly practical and accessible text unlocks the often confusing field of special education provision in schools today by:

• 
  
  

• Summarising and clarifying new policy directions as they emerge, in light of the new SEN Code of Practice

• 
  
  

• Suggesting clear, practical activities to bring the theory to life, helping practitioners to review and reflect upon their work;

• 
  
  

• Encouraging critical reflection about existing systems within the school context, considering whether these will remain appropriate and 'fit for purpose';

• 
  
  

• Giving opportunities for teachers, SENCOs and senior leaders to contextualise the new changes in terms of the implications for practice in their own school.

Including a new chapter on Using Technologies to Support the Development of Inclusive Practices, this text is packed with activities, case studies and points for reflection. It will help the teacher, SENCO, senior leader or advisor to make sense of the rapid pace of change of policy and terminology related to SEN and supports readers in a positive way, emphasising the exciting opportunities that these changes will provide for developing new, innovative and creative working practices.

This book will also be essential reading for all SENCOs completing the National Award for SEN Coordination.

1
Re-Examining Practices in a Time of Change

This Chapter:

• • contextualises the current period of rapid change within education and special educational needs (SEN) systems;
• • examines the need for change, critically examining flaws in the previous SEN system;
• • examines the positioning of inclusion and inclusive education within current educational discourse;
• • considers the need for a values-based approach to change and development;
• • summarises key principles for effective school development;
• • introduces a framework for developing thinking and practice.

We are in a period of significant change within both the education and special educational needs (SEN) systems. The publication of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice (DfE/DoH, 2014) is seen to be the most radical reform of our SEN system in the last thirty years (DfE, 2011). Both the new Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice (DfE/DoH, 2014) and the new National Curriculum (DfE, 2014) therefore have a significant impact not only on the experiences of pupils and young people with SEN and disabilities in our schools, but also on the responsibilities of teachers, special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) and other professionals working within the education system.

With both of these two key reforms happening at the same time, however, there is a danger that school staff will become overloaded with the new requirements and responsibilities. This may result in reactive approaches to the implementation and development of new approaches in our schools, which may undermine the potential for a values-driven reform of our SEN and education systems. There is therefore an urgent need for a critical approach to reviewing the implications of these changes, not only for pupils with SEN and disabilities, but also for parents and professionals.

This book is not intended as a simple ‘how to’ guide for practitioners implementing the evolving requirements of the new SEN and Disability Code of Practice (DfE/DoH, 2014). Rather, it is focused on critically examining the direction and potential impact of current change, helping practitioners to really understand and interrogate the impact and implications of developing practices for the experience of pupils with SEN and disabilities, and also for themselves as professional practitioners.

Understanding the Need for Change

In England, we are in a time of unprecedented change brought about by the effects and impact of global economic recession, change of government, and sweeping reforms of the education system and services to support children and families.

Since the election of the coalition government, we have seen the introduction of new policies and governmental priorities that promise radical reform of services to support the needs of children, focused on providing better outcomes for all. This has included the publication of a new Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice (DfE/DoH, 2014), the Children and Families Bill (2014) and the introduction of a new National Curriculum (DfE, 2014). We therefore find ourselves in a ‘changing landscape’ (Hallett and Hallett, 2010: 9) in relation to special educational needs, the role of the SENCO and also the development of the education system more widely.

The ‘case for change’ (DfE, 2010b) within both the education and special educational needs systems is clear. While new policies are certainly politically motivated, as a result of the changing government and the impact of the global economic recession, there is also a fundamental underlying need for change within both the education and special educational needs systems.

Key flaws in the SEN system in operation in England up until 2014 have been well documented (Warnock, 2005; House of Commons Select Committee, 2006; Lamb, 2009; Alexander, 2010; DfE, 2011), raising a number of criticisms, including:

• • that the SEN system was based on an outdated model of society, which was found to no longer be ‘fit for purpose’ (House of Commons, 2006: 12);
• • the problematic and interpretable definition of SEN;
• • tensions and confusions in policy regarding the positioning of SEN and inclusion;
• • the inequitable ‘postcode lottery’ experience of pupils and parents;
• • problems with communication with parents and parental confidence in the system;
• • difficulties with services working effectively to meet the needs of the child and their family;
• • tensions and inconsistent approaches to joint working across professional boundaries.

Significant ethical and philosophical problems with the existing system were identified, with ‘nearly everything about the construction of our current social system based on separation and segregation. It is not a system which is well suited to the delivery of equality, participation and inclusion’ (Rix et al., 2010: 4).

A radical overhaul of the system (Lamb, 2009; DfE, 2011) was therefore required. For positive change to occur, which will impact meaningfully on pupils with SEN and/or disabilities and their families, fresh new approaches to conceptualising and responding to the complex concepts of special educational needs and disability needed to be considered:

Our chances of achieving structures and procedures that are responsive to individuals means we must not be wedded to any aspects of the system as it presently stands. We must be prepared to adapt to the circumstances, in a way that takes account of its ongoing impact on those affected. To develop in this way requires a great deal of flexibility. Our systems need to be capable of adapting and continuing to be adaptive without diminishing their cohesiveness or accountability.

(Rix et al., 2010: 4)

Yet, as OFsted (2010) recommended in their review of the existing SEN and disability systems at that time:

Any further changes to legislation or guidance should not simply add to the current arrangements but, rather, should simplify them and improve their consistency across different services and for children of different ages and levels of need.

(OFsted, 2010: 14)

Since 2011, with the published proposals for change to the SEN system (DfE, 2011), the government pledged to develop an evidence-based approach to making changes to the existing system, through the use of SEN Pathfinder Teams across the country who were responsible for trialling, piloting and evaluating potential new proposals and new ways of working. While this was indeed a positive approach to leading innovative change within an established education system, unfortunately the evaluation of the work of the SEN Pathfinder Teams has not been rigorously analysed and evaluated or used to explain the new systems that are now in place. The new SEN and Disability Code of Practice (DfE, 2014), although a staggering 281 pages long, making it difficult for staff to easily access and engage with it, does not include any clear references back to the evidence base that the SEN Pathfinder Teams could have provided. To me, this is a fundamental flaw in the current approach to SEN. What practitioners, professionals and parents need at this point are clear links to the evidence base that has informed the development of the new practices: with clearly explained rationales for the evaluated impact of those changes in practice, and even some exemplar formats and models to aid a more consistent national approach to SEN and disability.

With the publication and implementation of the reforms of both the National Curriculum (DfE, 2014) and the SEN and Disability Code of Practice (DfE, 2014), we therefore need to really evaluate how effectively fresh new approaches have been enabled to evolve. Are the changes in the SEN system and the National Curriculum radical new approaches to respond meaningfully to the changing needs of society? Or have we remained wedded to aspects of the previous system? How far will our approaches in our own schools enable us to really move into flexible approaches to meeting needs?

As Lamb noted in 2009:

We have a unique opportunity now to make a real and lasting change for future generations of children. This will only be realized if everyone within the system works towards these ends. The cultural change required will not be straightforward to implement – or always immediate – but should deliver greater ambition for our most vulnerable children and much greater engagement with their parents.

Perhaps now, some years later, we have arrived at this critical stage and have our ‘unique opportunity’. At this time, it is therefore essential that practitioners working in schools take time to critically consider the ‘unique opportunities’ that they have to change and develop existing practices to ensure meaningful impact for the pupils they serve. As we move into a new era with the introduction of a new National Curriculum and a new SEN and Disability Code of Practice, we need to reflect on how well the ‘cultural change’ is being effected.

This is an important time for the development of systems and processes to support all pupils, and particularly those with SEN and/or disabilities. These changes will have an impact on ways that practitioners can respond to meeting the needs of pupils with SEN and/or disabilities in their classrooms. They will have an impact on the way that pupils with SEN and their parents have statutory entitlements and equitable rights to meaningful learning experiences. In this period of change, we actually have an exciting opportunity to really review and develop our own practices. For this to happen it is therefore essential that school-based practitioners, higher education colleagues, advisors, professionals from education, health and social care working with vulnerable pupils and families with SEN and/or disabilities, and, of course, parents and pupils themselves, actively engage in detailed critical review and reflection about the reality of the situation for pupils with SEN and/or disabilities, and ways that we can radically reform our approaches, practices and underpinning assumptions in order to offer better outcomes for all.

The positioning of inclusion and inclusive education

Understanding the impact and development of SEN policies, practices and systems requires a deeper understanding of how inclusion and inclusive practices are contextualised and understood within the policy context. For more than a decade now, the positioning and understanding or prioritisation of inclusion and inclusive education in England has been problematic and contradictory across different policy documents. There has been, and continues to be, an uncomfortable positioning of inclusion and standards within government documents, with different documents variously emphasising the importance of one or other approach. As Norwich identifies: ‘[t]he tension between the push for externally visible standards and providing inclusively and flexibly for pupils with SEN has been recognized since the implementation of the 1988 Act (Weddell, 1988)’ (Norwich, 2010: 38).

A confused definition of inclusion and inclusive education therefore emerged through the raft of Labour government documents, which variously linked inclusion specifically with the placement and provision of pupils with SEN, and more generally within a rights-based approach to social inclusion (House of Commons, 2006; Ainscow, Booth and Dyson, 2006). OFsted found that Local Authorities and providers: ‘felt that some government policies worked against others’ (OFsted, 2010: 59). This has produced a situation where:

The word alone invokes a great deal of strong feeling and antagonism. Polar opposite views have been represented to the Committee: from fervent advocates of inclusion who regard it as a human rights issue that all children should be included in mainstream schools; to those who see inclusion policy as the root of all problems in SEN, such as a hesitance on the part of local authorities to issue statements and the closure of special schools that parents have fought hard to keep open.

(House of Commons, 2006: 22)

This, when then added to the problematic tensions created by a policy context that emphasised the driving up of standards through a range of performance measures that encouraged comparison and competition between schools, but that did not reflect school’s increasing successes including pupils who may not ‘perform well’ on league table data, produced a confusing picture of the value placed on inclusion.

The concept and positioning of inclusion within coalition government policies unfortunately perpetuates the confusions. While in 2011, policy statements emphasised the need to ‘remove the bias towards inclusion’ (DfE, 2011: 4), the SEN and Disability Code of Practice (DfE/DoH, 2014) discusses its principled approach to inclusion and inclusive principles in some detail, emphasising a ‘focus on inclusive practice and removing barriers to learning’ (DfE/DoH, 2014: 20).

In moving forward effectively, it will be essential for the government to carefully define a consistent and clearly articulated approach to inclusive education. Since the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO,1994), which drew together a range of countries to agree and sign commitment to principles of inclusion, including ensuring that all children are enrolled in ‘regular schools’ as a matter of course, much has been done to change attitudes towards how the needs of all children can be met most positively and effectively. For me, inclusion is not just about something that is ‘done’ to pupils with SEN and/or disabilities. Rather, it involves complex consideration and challenging questions about the appropriateness of educational experiences for ALL pupils. This is a principled approach to education that, in this time of changing policies and practices, really does need to be clearly and consistently articulated. Through the expression and development of consistent policy statements that coherently support inclusive principles, practitioners can be supported to understand inclusion as an active process of removing barriers to learning and participation for all pupils (Booth and Ainscow, 2002; Ekins, 2010b).

The specific and particular needs of pupils with SEN can then most effectively be met within school settings built on underlying principles of inclusive values (Corbett, 2001; Kugelmass, 2004; Ekins and Grimes, 2009). So, what is, or should, inclusive education be about?

Reflective activity 1.1

• • Where would you position recent Labour government policy on this typology?
• • Where would you position current coalition government policy?
• • What is the implication of this for the development of a fair and equitable education system for all?
• • Where would you position practice in your school?
• • Where would you position your own practice and understandings of inclusion?
• • Are there any tensions?
• • How may these be addressed?

While the language and definition of inclusion, nationally and internationally, is also very confused with many different definitions, a useful typology of different approaches to inclusion within the English policy context is provided by Ainscow et al. (2006):

1. Inclusion as a concern with disabled students and others categorised as ‘having special educational needs’.
2. Inclusion as a response to disciplinary exclusion.
3. Inclusion in relation to all groups seen as being vulnerable to e...