Managing Special Needs in Mainstream Schools

The Role of the SENCO

John Dwyfor Davies, Philip Garner, John Lee, John Dwyfor Davies, Philip Garner, John Lee

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429952937
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation générale

First published in 1998. The wide-ranging perspectives in this book will help key personnel in primary schools to manage the implantation of the 1993 Education Act and the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs more effectively. Governors and headteachers comment on the management of resources and on interaction with parents and others outside the school. Researchers and academics provide an analysis of the impact and legal implications of the Code of Practice on primary schools. SENCOs offer insights into the development of whole-school and classroom practice, commenting on the practicalities of implementing the philosophy behind the Code of Practice.

Chapter 1

Operating in the context of zero tolerance

John Dwyfor Davies, Philip Garner and John Lee

The passing of the 1988 Education Reform Act Act marked the beginning of a period of remarkable volatility in English and Welsh education policy. Since that time, the system has been subject to an extraordinary range of centrally generated policy initiatives. All schools and teachers have been subject to this ‘bearing down’ of the central state, but it will be argued that this pressure is especially severe on SENCOs. In parallel with legislation and administrative orders, we have seen the development of fierce ideological debates around the concepts of integration and inclusion, with their accompanying rhetoric. The purpose of this chapter is to place the SENCO’s role and operation in the context of broad policy and administrative changes since the General Election of 1997.

The change of government in 1997 has brought about a flurry of new policies and legislation. Elected on the slogan ‘education, education, education’, it has declared itself to be committed to raising standards for all pupils in all schools. It has produced two major education green papers, a white paper, and currently two bills are progressing through parliament.¹ The general welcome given to the change of government by the teachers’ professional associations and their old ‘partners’ the LEAs, was to some extent predicated on the notion that the new government would be less interventionist, and more trusting of the profession. This has proved to be ill-founded. This government, rather than ‘getting off teachers’ backs’, has been equally, if not more, aggressive than the previous in directing what teachers must do and how schools should be organised. Some of these policies and the institutions that are related to them are a continuation from the previous government, others are new. We identify the following as impacting in particular ways on the role of the SENCO.

government. But the focus on the setting of absolute standards and the government’s confidence in the use of inspection in achieving that policy goal puts SENCOs in this difficult and stressful position.

The recent publication School Evaluation Matters (OFSTED 1998b) advises schools that in addition to external evaluation – inspection – they ought to engage in self-evaluation. The tone of the document chimes with the relentless policy demands of the government for school improvement. It states:

You should therefore base any strategy for improvement on systematic monitoring of performance and evaluation of classroom practice to provide a clear diagnosis of how teaching and learning can be more effective (emphasis ours).

The role of the SENCO in this will be crucial for children who are on the register. SENCOs must monitor and advise on the teaching methods to be adopted for pupils with special educational needs. The progress of pupils with IEPs will be under scrutiny with respect not just to individual progress but to the effectivity of the school. The Chief Inspector’s Annual Report (1998a) identifies the lack of time to complete pupil reviews as a problem. More problematic will be the fact that SENCOs will be addressing the question of how schools can become more effective with respect to pupils with special educational needs, in a context in which ‘monitoring, evaluation and support for teaching’ was judged to be unsatisfactory in 62 per cent of primary schools in 1996/97 (OFSTED 1997).

As schools begin to use Performance and Assessment reports, it is very likely that SENCOs will be expected to help to identify similar schools. The number of pupils with special educational needs is significant in any form of benchmarking, and it is likely that SENCOs will be ‘pushed’ to generate more Stage 3 statements, particularly in those schools that compare unfavourably in terms of performance with others in their locality.

National, local and school targets

The Labour government came to power on manifesto promises to prioritise education. It has accepted the view of the previous administration that schools provide poor-quality education for too many pupils. Before the election of May 1997, the Labour party declared that it was its intention to ensure that standards in literacy and numeracy were raised in all schools. Once elected, it declared absolute standards to be met in these core skills. On 13 May 1997, David Blunkett, Secretary of State for Education, announced these new standards.

Last year, in national tests only 55% of our 11 year olds finishing their crucial primary school years reached the standards in maths expected for their age. In English tests only 57% could read at the same standard. These are weaknesses in absolutely basic skills at vital moments in the lives of our children – and we must tackle them. That’s why today I am announcing that by the time of the national tests in 2002: 75% of 11 year olds will be reaching the standards expected for their age in maths, and 80% of 11 year olds will be reaching the standards expected for their age in English. (DfEE 1997c)

These absolute standards are defined as Level 4 in English and mathematics at the end of Key Stage 2, and must be reached regardless of the pupils’ social backgrounds. In January 1998 Steven Byers, School Standards Minister, set out how the targets were to be delivered. Each LEA has now been set an individual target.

These figures have been agreed with LEAs and they are tough. For example: in Sandwell LEA in 1996, 45% of 11 year olds reached the standard required for their age in English tests by 2002 it must be 76%; in Tower Hamlets the 1996 figure was 36%, by 2002 it must be 70%...others are currently above the national average but there is no room for complacency. For example: in Bromley, the 1996 figure was 67%, in 2002 it must be 90%; in Bury, the 1996 figure was 66%, in 2002 it must be 90%.... We want no excuses for failure. Many LEAs are in deprived areas, but poverty is no excuse for underachievement. (DfEE 1998a)

This policy does not set out aspirations but is a series of imperatives. LEAs must reach these standards regardless of their individual circumstances. Whilst social disadvantage is recognised, it is barely taken into account in setting the targets. Having received their targets, LEAs have now given targets to each of their schools. While the national targets apparently recognise Warnock’s contention that 20 per cent of the school population will have special educational needs at any given time, this percentage will not be evident in every school. Such is the very harsh climate in which SENCOs must operate. SENCOs will be placed in the position of advocating specific provision for pupils with special educational needs, in institutions with fixed achievement targets. Most SENCOs hold the view that the recognition of individual differences and achievements of individuals, however small, is the way to meet the needs of particular pupils. Although charged with responsibility for pupils, they have no role in setting achievement targets for them and may well find themselves in conflict with national, local and school policy directives. There is already some anecdotal evidence of schools rejecting pupils who they think may adversely affect their KS1 and 2 assessment averages, because they have either learning difficulties or behavioural difficulties. SENCOs are likely to be placed in a position of being the advocate for such children, putting themselves in professional – and possibly personal – conflict with their colleagues.

Turning to Individual Education Plans (IEPs), there is a problem here in that the DEP must relate directly to the identified needs of the child. For instance, it may set a slower pace of learning for individuals. Equally, while ensuring the pupil’s entitlement to the National Curriculum, the IEP will necessarily prioritise some skills and knowledge above others. This will inevitably lead to conflict with the school’s prioritisation of meeting its set literacy and numeracy targets. We suggest that this will arise at two levels. First, the slight freedom of action that is currently enjoyed in meeting the demands of pupils with special educational needs will be constrained as resources are mobilised to meet the school’s target demands. Second, the change in pedagogy that will be brought about by the focus on literacy and numeracy will remove the capacity of individual class teachers to plan for individuals. In both these cases, the arguments that the SENCOs make for provision may place them in conflict with both their colleagues and their managers.

National strategies

The 1988 Education Act directed schools as to the content of the curriculum but maintained the long tradition of allowing teachers and schools to teach in the way they felt to be most appropriate. Also explicitly excluded from legislation was the amount of time to be spent on different subjects. During the second reading of the bill, the Secretary of State, Kenneth Baker, in his speech to the House of Commons, made these points abundantly clear.

We do not intend to lay down, either on the face of the Bill or in any secondary legislation, the percentage of time to be spent on different subjects. This will provide flexibility, but it is our belief that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for any school to provide the national curriculum in less than 70% of the time available... We want to build on the professionalism of the many fine teachers and dedicated teachers throughout our education system. The national curriculum will provide scope for imaginative approaches developed by our teachers. (Haviland 1988)

It is worth reminding ourselves that when Kenneth Baker made this speech in December 1987, he was speaking in support of what was deemed to be the most centralising piece of education legislation ever. Reading this speech now, it is evident how amazingly bold and innovative the Labour government has been with respect to pedagogy. The national strategies for literacy and numeracy prescribe content, time allocation per subject and teaching method. The national targets for literacy and numeracy, discussed above, will be met because schools and teachers will follow the specified pedagogy. At the time of writing only the National Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching (DfEE 1998a) has been published. The National Numeracy Strategy (DfEE 1998b) is still in draft form published for consultation. But its time allocations and teaching procedures mirror that of the Literacy Strategy. Thus we can be confident in stating that its effects will be similar. It is to the nature of this pedagogy and its origins that we now turn.

The pedagogy of the two strategies is claimed to be firmly underpinned by research findings. In fact, it draws very heavily on the school effectiveness literature. Mortimore et al. (1988) study of ILEA junior schools is the source of many of the ideas underpinning the strategies. They found that the effective classrooms observed were characterised by regular, high order cognitive interactions and a correspondingly lower number of managerial and organisational ones. It was not simply a matter of teachers prioritising cognitive interactions that was significant, but that they interacted regularly with all the children in the class. Later, classroom effectiveness studies have also pointed to this as an important correlate of classroom effectiveness. What we would point to as important here is the fact that it is the actions of teachers as instructors, rather than as organisers and facilitators, that is the measure of effectiveness.

The two strategies can be seen as the practical working out of the broad policy objective of refusing to tolerate failure – ‘zero tolerance’. As well as the school effectiveness research, it draws on the idea that schools cannot/should not be allowed to fail, what is often referred to as ‘high reliability’. This aspect of school effectiveness prioritises specified outcomes for all, and plays down the idea that the make-up of the school population should be taken into account.

At a conference on 27 February 1997, approximately three months before the election of the Labour party, the introduction of a literacy ‘task force’ was announced. In fact, what the task force presented as a vision has become reality. An important aspect of the conference was the way in which the overarching idea of no tolerance for failure was highlighted and Slavin’s ‘Success for All’ project (Slavin 1997) was presented as a key case study. In fact, Slavin himself addressed the conference. His was an optimistic and upbeat contribution, assuring the conference that it was possible to ensure that schools delivered success to their pupils – even if those pupils were amongst the poverty-stricken and disadvantaged. The claims for ‘Success for All’ programmes are impressive. Slavin argues that ‘large scale change in teaching practices can be brought about through the development, evaluation, a...