The Governance Handbook for SEND and Inclusion

Schools that Work for All Learners

Adam Boddison

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000332858
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Didattica
• Thema: Didattica generale

The Governance Handbook for SEND and Inclusion supports governors and trustees in developing effective strategic practice to ensure an inclusive culture in their schools. Building on the six principles of effective governance, it provides useful tips on achieving the right balance of support and challenge so that schools are enabled to meet the needs of learners with SEND (Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities).

Relevant for all governors and trustees across primary and secondary schools, multi-academy trusts and specialist settings, the book focuses on the role and expectations of governance in relation to SEND and inclusion. It includes:

• 
  
  

• An introduction to SEND, inclusion and the six key features of effective governance

• 
  
  

• Practical advice and guidance for SEND Governors and trustees on how to strategically monitor and review SEND provision

• 
  
  

• A discussion of how the relationship between SENCOs, SEND Governors and Headteachers works in practice

• 
  
  

• Advice on developing an inclusive culture in your school

• 
  
  

• Sources of ongoing support and resources from professional organisations and websites.

This book will be beneficial to all education professionals working at a strategic level, including governors and trustees, school leaders and SENCOs. It recognises the central role that governors and trustees play in setting the inclusive ethos of a school and suggests ways to ensure that strategic practice is as effective as possible.

1 An introduction to SEND and inclusion

A note from the author

Before this chapter begins in earnest, it is worth flagging some practical points. The language in relation to special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) and inclusion is complex, politically-charged and frequently changing. In general, the term SEND is used in this book, but occasionally other terms will be used too, such as special educational needs (SEN), learning differences or learning difficulties. Whilst there are definitional differences between these terms, please note that they have been used interchangeably for the purposes of this book. It is also worth being aware that there are many other terms for SEND in general use, such as additional learning needs, additional support needs and learning disabilities.

In relation to governance, this book generally uses the terminology of governors, schools and Headteachers, but many of the principles discussed apply equally to trustees, multi-academy trusts (MATs) and chief executive officers. Also, the book generally refers to the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO), but there are other equivalent job titles such as the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Coordinator (SENDCO) or Inclusion Coordinator. The principles discussed for the SENCO role are also applicable to multi-school roles, such as Director of Inclusion.

In education, and particularly in SEND, there are a lot of acronyms. So a glossary of acronyms (Appendix 3) has been included at the end of the book. If you are completely new to education (or SEND), then you may find it useful to familiarise yourself with this in advance of reading the book.

At the time of writing this book, the Department for Education (DfE) is conducting a strategic review of SEND, which is likely to result in major policy changes at a national level. Alongside this book, the reader should ensure they are up-to-date with the latest developments in this area. The impact of COVID-19 has elongated the review, but the government has expressed its commitment to complete the review during 2021.

Lastly, a note on my personal and professional experience in relation to SEND as this will give you, as a reader, some sense of the basis on which the content of this book is drawn. I started my professional career as a secondary school mathematics teacher and then went on to teach at primary level and ending up as the Founding Director for the Centre for Professional Education at the University of Warwick with a teacher training leadership remit spanning the early years, primary and secondary phases.

My current substantive role is Chief Executive of the National Association for Special Educational Needs (nasen), which includes being the Chair of the Whole School SEND Consortium, the Chair of the National SEND Reference Group and sitting on a number of other SEND groups and committees. I am also a Director of the Leading Learning SEND Community Interest Company, which is the quality assurance body for providers of the masters-level National Award for SEN Coordination.

From a governance perspective, I am a National Leader of Governance for the DfE and have extensive experience of governance across primary, secondary and special schools. In addition to chairing school governing bodies, I have also been the nominated SEND Governor and have experience of being a trustee for small and large MATs.

This breadth and depth of experience spanning SEND, governance and education more broadly have provided me with what I hope are useful insights and my aim is to share them with you throughout this book. My thanks to the many friends and colleagues who have supported me on this fabulous journey.

What is SEND?

Introducing the concepts of SEND and inclusion is not as simple as it might first appear. There are various legal, political and practical definitions, but for many people their reference point is based on personal experience. It may be that a friend, a colleague or a relative has SEND or that they have SEND themselves. Alternatively, they may have built their knowledge of SEND from their professional work, from the news or from social media.

There is no right or wrong way to learn about SEND and inclusion, of course, but we should be mindful that the early information and experiences a person has are likely to shape their overall views and opinions. For example, let us consider two pupils with a vision impairment who each attended a different mainstream primary school. For one pupil, his/her experience may have been extremely positive whereby he/she felt wholly included as an equal and valued member of the school community. For the other pupil, his/her experience may have been less positive in that his/her school tried to meet his/her needs, but never quite got it right and so he/she never felt fully included as part of the school community.

In the first scenario, the pupil may later struggle to understand why all mainstream schools cannot meet the needs of children with a vision impairment, since school worked fine for them. In the second scenario, the pupil may later take the view that mainstream schools are just not equipped to meet low-incidence needs (needs that occur relatively rarely in comparison to other types of need). Whilst this example was based on pupils with a vision impairment, an equivalent argument could be made for other specific conditions or indeed for SEND more broadly.

Individuals' views about SEND will likely be shared amongst family and friendship groups where personal perspectives have the potential to be both powerful and convincing in shaping the opinions of other people. Too often, I have witnessed people make decisions or set policy on the basis of the experience of their friend with condition X or their family member with set of needs Y.

The point here is that SEND and inclusion are concepts that are determined not only by definition, but also by personal experience and by cultural influences. Whilst there may be some common areas of understanding, each of us will have different perspectives on SEND and inclusion. Indeed, there are some significant differences of opinion between those who would be considered experts in the field. From a governance perspective, it is important to have a diverse set of experiences and perspectives to draw from at board level alongside clear systems and processes rooted in good practice, so that an informed approach to strategic decision-making can be taken in relation to SEND and inclusion.

The legal definition of SEN is set out in Chapter 6, Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (Gov UK, 2014) as follows:

1. A child or young person has special educational needs if he or she has a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.
2. A child of compulsory school age or a young person has a learning difficulty or disability if he or she:
   1. (a) has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age, or
   2. (b) has a disability which prevents or hinders him or her from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age in mainstream schools or mainstream post-16 institutions.
3. A child under compulsory school age has a learning difficulty or disability if he or she is likely to be within subsection (2) when of compulsory school age (or would be likely, if no special educational provision were made).
4. A child or young person does not have a learning difficulty or disability solely because the language (or form of language) in which he or she is or will be taught is different from a language (or form of language) which is or has been spoken at home.

An important observation about this definition is that it is based on comparisons and relative difficulties rather than absolute thresholds of need. As demonstrated in Figure 1.1, when determining whether or not a child has special educational needs, it is important to:

• compare one child with other children of the same age; and
• compare the provision that they need with the provision generally available for others of the same age.

Figure 1.1Comparisons to support the identification of SEND.

According to this definition, determining whether or not a child or a young person has SEND has more to do with the provision they require and how well others of the same age are learning. This means that if there were two children with the same profile of needs, but in different contexts, the extent to which they have SEND and require specialist provision may be different in each case. The following three examples explore this concept in more depth.

Example 1

Sarah and Cassie are both 15-year-olds and have autism spectrum disorder. They both struggle with sensory overload when classrooms or the wider school environment are too busy, too cluttered or too loud.

Sarah attends a large secondary school with more than 2000 pupils. Sarah's school believes in ‘working wall’ classroom displays as well as bright and engaging classroom environments. The SENCO has identified Sarah's sensory needs and that she does not always cope well with the school environment. Therefore, the SENCO has added Sarah to the SEN register and has made provision for her to be able to visit a low-sensory area of the school during break-time and lunchtime or whenever she needs to.

Cassie attends a small rural secondary school where there are only 230 pupils. Cassie's school has a curriculum based on nurture principles and the size of the school is such that the teachers are acutely aware of the needs of individual children. The school has a significant number of other children with a similar profile of sensory needs as Cassie and so they have taken the approach of classrooms being generally free of clutter with low-arousal wall displays as far as possible. Indeed, the smaller size of the school means it is likely to be calmer and quieter than a larger secondary school. The SENCO has not added Cassie to the SEN register because they have judged that her sensory needs are met by the wider approach of the school and so special educational provision is not required. It is perhaps useful to know here that the Children and Families Act 2014 defines ‘special educational provision’ as that which is ‘additional to, or different from, that made generally for others of the same age’.

Sarah and Cassie have similar profiles of need, but their school environments are starkly different. The legal definition of SEN is such that Sarah may be deemed to have SEN, whilst Cassie may not. Furthermore, if Sarah and Cassie were to attend a different school, their SEN status may change despite their profile of needs remaining the same.

It is important to note that this example is not seeking to make a judgement about the approach of either school and there is no suggestion that one school is more inclusive than the other. The example seeks only to demonstrate that two children with a similar profile of needs can be identified differently and receive different types and levels of provision depending upon the wider context and physical environment.

Example 2

Ayyub and Samuel are both 12-year-olds and have complex needs. This means they have two or more severe needs that likely interact with and exacerbate each other. In some cases, this may include medical needs or life-limiting conditions. In the case of Ayyub and Samuel, their complex needs include both cerebral palsy and mental health needs.

Ayyub attends a special school where more than 80% of the pupils have a primary diagnosis of cerebral palsy and the school more generally specialises in provision for children with physical disabilities. The school uses a multi-disciplinary approach that brings together therapeutic interventions with medical care and quality teaching and learning. The relatively large proportion of children with cerebral palsy is such that the school is well equipped to meet the needs associated with this condition as a standard part of its day-to-day provision for all children. For Ayyub, this could mean that the school then places a particular emphasis on what additional therapeutic provision is required to support his mental health needs.

Samuel attends a special school that caters for a broader range of special educational needs and disabilities. The school groups children according to their primary area of need and they have decided to place Samuel in a small class of other children with social, emotional and mental health needs. The Headteacher at the school is confident that the standard day-to-day provision in Samuel's class will be effective in meeting his mental health needs. The focus in relation to the additional individual specialist provision is then...