Chris Chivers (Thinks)

  • Home
  • Blog-Thinking Aloud
  • Contact
  • Contents
  • PDFs
  • Sing and strum

Inclusion and SEN

27/1/2016

3 Comments

 
Over the past couple of years, on Twitter, there have been many conversations about Inclusion and whether it is desirable or achievable.

The introduction of the new version of the National Curriculum, with a year group based scheme of work has sometimes seemed to bring the whole into one simple argument. While some argue that it demonstrates “high expectations” and suggest that “they” hold such expectations, others begin to argue that, where some children are failing to keep up with their peers that somehow they should be “elsewhere”. Any alternative argument is met with an accusation of “dumbing down”, or some other put down.

In the early days of the drafting of the NC, I was worried by the emergence of the term “mastery”, because this connotation could be equated to a proportion of more able children, whose needs might be argued as better met in a separate establishment; Grammar Schools keep hitting the headlines.

There is also the idea of a National Standard, that has been notionally set by the Government that, on a simple reading of the National Curriculum suggests that all children should “know and understand” the contents of the scheme of work. So it is arguable that where a child “knows and understands” less than 100% of the scheme of work, that there are gaps that will affect their future progress. Can we really get to a stage where 100% of children in a year group will achieve 100% in any test situation? Therefore, by definition, there will be a proportion of children who will be deemed not to have achieved. These children are likely to largely be those whose learning is less secure and may also have some kind of Specific Learning Difficulty that underlies this.

Anyone who has regularly read my blog will know that I have raised concerns about those children who will be judged to not be on track to achieve at the cohort expectation, especially when they get to transfer age, at 7 or 11, or to use and adjust a phrase used prior to 2015, “Secondary ready”, which could then be extrapolated to “Junior ready”.
Rather than worrying about the potential for creaming off the top, I am beginning to be more exercised by the potential for the argument that certain children “do not belong” in mainstream education.

This, to me, is being exacerbated by a developing narrative of Inclusion as being synonymous with integration of SEN, rather than the idea of catering for the needs of all children. It is then easier for some to start to articulate “otherness” and “not fitting”.

If there has been systematic, forensic internal analysis of individual needs, plans put in place that have had limited impact, despite best efforts from appropriate staff, advice sought from external expertise that has also been implemented, then a case study might be drawn up that seems to support alternative needs.

However, a class teacher may express the view that X “doesn’t belong” because they do not have the expertise to address the evident needs. Limited teacher expertise, understanding or tolerance, does not make a child into a special need case. So quality of teaching has to be taken onto account. Negativity towards the learner, once expressed, cannot be taken back and this rupture can become the real cause of the need to move the learner. If an internal move is possible, it is to be hoped that this will not be with a label that colours the receiving teacher view, or it becomes a negative cycle with it’s own dynamics.

It has, for many teachers, become more difficult to fully define individual learning needs within the current NC, with systems deeming children to be “emerging”, until they have completed the curriculum to be delivered. As this is likely to be in the summer term, there needs to be a greater clarity about ongoing security with the essential learning. The system could have an inbuilt delay in intervention.

Inclusion is just doing your job well, for each and every child in the class and the school. Systems should be in place that identify the vulnerable learners and those who are potentially vulnerable, as an aspect of ongoing assessment activities. The notion of TIC, TAC, TOE should guide decisions as concerns deepen (team including the child, around the child, of experts), with teachers knowing the level of concern, interventions planned and ongoing outcomes from these interventions, so that expectations are coordinated across all aspects of a child’s learning.
​
In the absence of any other methodology, here’s a crib sheet of SEN categories with some possible identifiers.
Picture
It is quite likely that a teacher will meet a child, or children, who test their ability to adapt and cater for their needs. To discuss the needs with a knowledgeable other is professional, not to do so, then to suggest that a child is wrongly placed, without a developed history, is bordering on unprofessional, in my opinion.
At an extreme, I am reminded of a radio programme that I listened to while travelling from an ITE observation, which was the story of Albert Goering, the brother of Herman, "The Good Goering". The term “unter-menchen” came up in discussion about the removal of those who didn’t fit.

Is it possible that the fate of children with Special Needs or Specific Learning Difficulties will be described as “not fitting” and to be removed to another place, thereby bringing back into reality the idea of an under-being? Of course, when one is removed, another takes their place at the “bottom of the class”, or as a higher concern. Becomes cyclic.

Unintended consequences?

​Better to build teacher expertise so that individuals, and the school can deal better with needs.
​
Inclusion ethos; everyone has value in and for themselves. Every child matters (and always has)
3 Comments

In for a penny

21/1/2016

2 Comments

 
Jennifer “can’t read”.

Try reading this line again just using only phonics knowledge.

Was it possible, as an able, adult reader, to revert back to an early reader stage? If it was, was it quick and fluent?

This week, I have been visiting School Direct trainees as they embark on their second experience. Two lessons, in particular, stood out as food for thought. One was a maths lesson, where children were challenged to use small coins to make 10p. The other was a phonics lesson, where children were asked to use knowledge of sounds to make words. As this was a second practice, the trainee reflected on the subtle difference between the schools, as one was working on Read, Write Inc, while the second school was using Letters and Sounds. There was some nervousness in her approach, as she wanted desperately to “get it right”.

The whole coalesced when I bumped into an elderly ex-colleague, who reminisced about her teaching days, including the regular teaching of phonics, as a part of reading.

In my own mind, it brought together a simple premise. In mathematics there is the concept of conservation of number, where a whole number has a known value. Where a child has conservation of number, they are able to hold the value of a number and add or take away another without recourse to counting from one. In the maths lesson, it was interesting to see who was reverting to counting, rather than maintaining the values of coins. Conservation of number and accompanying visualisation supports fluency in mathematical thinking.
​
Picture
In words, the building blocks of each word are the letters and sounds that combine to make the word. Much has been written and argued about phonics teaching and the relative merits of one approach or another, often centred on the idea of mixed methods or whole word approaches. I know that I learned through whole word, largely Ladybird and Janet and John. However, throughout my teaching career, I have taught children, of all ages the letter-sound correspondences that make up a phonics approach. In fact, it was often an area of investigation of “non-readers”, that I would check their phonics knowledge. Non–readers would present with fluency and accuracy issues, both of which meant that they were then no able to understand the text being read.

While there is a need for direct phonics teaching and, where it is done well, it does impact on learning, once words are built up, it seems eminently logical to me that they are then “conserved” as whole words for ease of carrying around, rather than having a pocketful of small change, reserving phonics as a tool for tackling unknown words when they are encountered. I remember all of my children, and now my grandchildren, asking “What’s that word?”

They wanted a holistic answer, not a “Let’s work it out” approach, as the word, as a whole, embedded some information, whereas the sounds would need a further layer of processing in order to put the sounds together to be able to make the word. In that period a young child will have switched off. However, having shared the word, it was then possible to explore the word for the component parts, depending on the context and the interest of the child on that day.

There is much interplay between the elements that coalesce into what we take for granted as a word. Children when learning to speak, tend to focus on whole words. It is when they need to use their emerging child vocabulary in the context of reading that they have to essentially relearn the elements of the language, which might result in some loss of confidence, or bring to the surface, as yet, undiagnosed issues.

Children need a rich vocabulary, orally, to fully participate in lessons that rely on speaking and listening skills. This is likely to come from a range of modelled sources, home as well as school. A good knowledge of each child is likely to result in almost intuitive engagements with language pitched to the needs of the child. It may, in some cases, require a form of interpretation, where several constructions are used to exemplify the same idea. This may not be only the province of an EAL child need. Issues orally can indicate hearing issue, so this should be checked as a priority, where a concern exists; eg undiagnosed “glue ear” can cause language delay.

Translated to the written word, where a broader range of needs come together, children may exhibit behaviours that demonstrate a need for a sight check; not necessarily uncommon. School can be the first point in a child’s life where this issue becomes apparent, through the needs of a new skill. However, a quick visit to the optician can miss some of the more subtle issues with eye problems. One child whom I taught had an exceptional general knowledge, a journalist, articulate parent, with whom, at six, he would talk philosophically, yet  J “struggled with reading”, despite every possible support and level of intervention. Eventually, after some very deep investigation, it was discovered that there was a level of “flicker” in his eyes that distorted words on a page. Once established, and remediated, this child flourished as a reader.

As a class teacher of reading, and while listening to children reading, I would regularly undertake a “miscue analysis”. Where this brought up a possible issue, this was addressed, with either a post read interrogation of the significant misconceptions, or a follow up, with a greater investigative focus, to create as full a picture as possible.

This would focus on:-
  • Talking about the book(s) being read, to ascertain the child’s understanding of what they were reading.
  • Phonics knowledge; fully identifying the sounds causing an issue.
  • Word knowledge, based on the 26 or 100 common word lists available, as read lists, but also, where there were concerns in writing, as spelling lists. Some schemes have additional words introduced within a level.
  • Fluency and accuracy checks; words per minute being read, percentage accuracy.
  • As this was always within a colour coded scheme, checking these elements with a “lower” colour, to see if there was any change in the above elements. Sometimes children progress through schemes without detailed checks.
  • Occasionally a standardised reading test was given.
Having done all these things, if there was still an issue, a discussion with the English lead or the special needs lead could be supported with insight, which was also valuable if the Educational Psychologist was then involved. It became a supported dialogue and investigation, rather than a set of imposed actions after the event.

It sometimes became apparent that the “performance” aspect of reading was a potential issue. Where this was the case, the use of recording was tried, to allow more privacy to the child and to remove that as a possible cause of concern.
​
It is better to investigate and address, rather than to need to remediate at a later stage.
​
If a word was worth a penny, a vocabulary of 5000 words would be worth £50, 10,000 would be £100; that sounds quite a reasonable equation.
2 Comments

SEN means real People

2/1/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
The past 24 hours have seen many hours spent in “discussing” the idea of inclusion. While there may be personal grounds to take a view at either pole of the debate, the reality is that children come to school and, once there, are entitled to receive the best that can be offered. This starts with the classteacher, who may find that the specific needs of a child are outside their experience. This is not uncommon.

Special needs come in all shapes and sizes, with a disparate range of needs. The skills that were developed in dealing with the issues of one child may not be transferrable exactly to another. It is therefore incumbent on each teacher to get to know the children as well as possible, to tailor challenge to the evident needs and to monitor very carefully the outcomes, as the journey constitutes the internal case study that may be needed as evidence of a specific special need.

While engaging with the Twitter chat this morning, my mind recalled a number of children with whom I have had the significant pleasure of spending time.

There was V, who was already in the school when I became a head. V was the most delightful child, full of life, always a ready smile, a befriender, especially of younger children during playtime, a real striver, whose have a go attitude was infectious. She had innumerable friends. V’s mum had taken thalidomide during pregnancy, so V was born without legs and one arm. Despite this, she got on with things, including the putting on and taking off of her prosthetic legs, or organising her wheelchair. It was often humbling to see how much extra effort she had to make just to get though each day. This had an inevitable impact on the children in her class and across the school as a whole.

I will never forget the school sports day where V was determined to take as full a part as possible. The skipping race was the highlight, as she “skipped”, with a friend each side turning the rope, while she “ran” without her prosthetics. There were many tears of joy at her success. It was inevitable that, when it came to the end of year celebrations, that the “contribution to school life” prize would go to V, simply for her example. This was grit, resilience, character and growth mindset, 1990 style.

R came to school as a Reception child, shy, retiring and not overactive in his approach. He would avoid physical activity at all costs, which was worrying, in itself. He was one of those children, who, very early, are on your “watch” list. It was during a visit by the school OT that I took her into the school hall, which coincided with Reception doing a PE lesson. She didn’t need R to be pointed out, as she turned pale and took me outside for a chat, concerned that there were undiagnosed underlying issues. A very painful few weeks ensued as hurried reference was made to medical services, several meetings with parents keeping each other in touch with developments and the final diagnosis of muscular dystrophy. R stayed with us for a few more years, first with the aid of crutches and then with a wheelchair, but, eventually, his physical needs moved to a point where it was clear that alternative provision was the better option. Visiting him there a year later, it was evident that this was the right decision. Sadly R died a couple of years after that. With a step brother and a cousin in school we were kept in touch with the news.

M was an excellent artist, could draw anything, from life and from imagination but M couldn’t make any sense of language. He could apparently speak well enough, albeit with a slightly limited vocabulary, but it became noticeable that he could not sustain an idea over several “sentences”. Working with the advisor for language, we were able to unpick aspects of his needs, so he was able to read, at a low level. His working memory was poor, so that needed some support and his comprehension, as an ability to make sense of what he had heard or read seemed to diminish, especially when linked to memory. He was living in a strange parallel world. We were able to use his artistic skill to advantage in creating storyboards from which he was encouraged to create oral stories that would be transcribed and turned into personal reading books. In the end, however, despite deploying every available resource and source of expertise available to us, the application for a statement was successful and, with a diagnosis of language disorder, M went to a specialist provision, where there was 1:1 teacher expertise available every day.

Each of these children, chosen to represent the many who passed through the school with individual needs, offered something in return. The ability to deal with physical or learning needs within the staff was enhanced with each child identified with a possible issue. This investigative capability, building within individual teachers and the school as a whole, enabled strengthened systems to be developed that supported others with lesser needs. Underpinning all this were very good relationships and communication, with no feeling of criticism if there was a need to discuss one’s personal needs as a teacher.

It can be the case that SEN issues push the limits of the organisation, on a personal and an organisational level. If external expertise is available and can be harnessed, the expertise can be grown through experience. There is a significant need to ensure record keeping of the highest quality, especially where there are concerns, as the primary need is to establish an internal case study to underpin discussions with external experts. These records can be premised on the questions that teachers have asked, then sought to follow up; analyse, plan, do, review, record is a useful simple mantra.

It is, however, really important to remember that you are dealing with the person first and foremost, with the need being a constituent part to be addressed, not the whole. It means knowing each child well, as a rounded individual, to avoid them becoming a “problem” child. The problem may be the teacher lack of expertise or experience, which has to be addressed first. There are also very concerned parents, who may be very fearful about what the future holds for their child. All factors have to be carefully considered.

Children may be similar, but they are not necessarily the same. SEN or individual issues provide a very good learning opportunity for teachers. Becoming a good investigator is a very good first step.
0 Comments

Practical SEN(D)

16/11/2015

 
Inclusion is just doing your job
The 2014 SEN framework
SEN changes for 2014
Top Tips for Inclusion
SEND 2014; possible class teacher Crib sheet.
When is SEND?
Individual needs
Individual needs; fine tuning
SEN Radio?
SEND Building an individual case study.
SEND Tic-Tac-Toe
SEND Teachers as investigators
​
Picture
Special Educational Needs (Disability) appears with regularity in my Twitter timeline, with, on one side, teachers saying how little training they have had to deal with that issue, as if it is a significantly separate aspect of teaching and on the other, those with some specialist background, in whose laps many of the problems are placed.

Changes to the organisation of SEND provision have been in train for the past few years, during which time I have blogged, as I have come across useful information. These blogs are archived within the contents list of the blog, but I have extracted (some of) them to make what I hope is a more holistic document here.

I have focused on issues as they affect mainstream school teachers. I have sought to develop a coherent, investigative approach that can fit with normal classroom practice, largely premised on the need to look, to reflect and record concerns to inform deeper conversations. I am not looking to describe the range of individual needs that might be encountered. There are many expert colleagues who are much more able to offer insights into the specifics of individualised SEN(D).

SEN is the area of teaching and learning where teacher expertise may be challenged. This, in itself, is an indicator of potential need, but, for a teacher, can create a feeling of vulnerability. There is always the possibility of meeting a child whose needs fall outside previous experience; the truism that “you’ve met one child with autism, so you’ve met one child with autism” can exemplify many areas of SEN. General statements like, “x cannot read”, are unhelpful to discussion. Investigating and sharing specifically what a child can and cannot do can lead to focused intervention, rather than general approaches.  Leaving a child in a situation where they are clearly failing, are seen to be failing and know that this is the case, is destructive to the teacher and the child. Acknowledging specific issues and finding the specific means to address the issues demonstrates a positive approach for everyone to acknowledge.

There is no doubt that, when a teacher encounters a child who does not fit the “normal mould” that they are used to, that they may experience unease. However, although it is possible for changes to occur later in life, as a result of illness, or a degenerative situation that suddenly becomes apparent, it is unlikely that special needs will be unknown to some extent, relatively early in a child’s life, at home and (pre)school. Concerns will have been raised, by parents or professionals, which hopefully have been followed up and investigated, so that, by the time a child enters school there may already be substantial information available.

Inclusion is just doing your job
Inclusion is seeking to effectively teach each and every child who enters your classroom. They will be known from earlier records, from preschool and parents on entry to school. Therefore, from the early stages of their education journey, teachers can analyse, prepare and begin to plan what they think are appropriate challenges and support structures for known cases. Plans should be adaptable to developing needs with challenge and support altered to evidence. I would amplify the word challenge, as it is easy to fall into the trap of considering needs to be lower level than reality.  

On entry into the formal learning situation, the staff eyes and ears are alert to issues, noting down things that are said and done, to ensure that future reflections can be based on pattern finding or evidence across a range of issues. Evidence finding is the bread and butter of teacher life, in terms of interactions, questioning, feedback, support and outcomes.

This was summarised in a pair of posts; SEND Tic-Tac-Toe  (team including the child; in class decisions, team around the child; including parent(s) and in-house expertise; Team including external experts) and SEN Radio? (Record of Actions, Discussions and Decisions, Interventions and Outcomes) which propounded the ides of fine tuning to need.
Consolidating this into a case study can support the efforts of external professionals to provide appropriate advice and support. A lack of detailed information ensures that an investigation has to be put in place. SEND Teachers as investigators

In order to support classteacher thinking, especially about the details of some aspects of SEND, I pulled together a crib-sheet, SEND 2014; possible class teacher Crib sheet.
which proved popular, as a start point for planning, thinking and record keeping.
​
Picture
The journey to SEN decisions is likely to be a phased affair, especially with regard to learning issues and possibly over an extended timescale for many children, much to the frustration of parents and teachers. “Getting a handle” on the problem can be a case of investigation leading to diagnosis, prescription and checking out the potential for “recovery”.

Unlike taking tablets, remediation is also embedded in relationships and these need to be carefully considered. Children know where they are in comparison with their peers. They can judge for themselves those who can and can also highlight that they can’t, across a wide range of subjects. This can lead to diminished self-esteem, to go along with the understanding of a learning struggle. They know when they are being given easier things to do, so presenting challenge with a clear rationale is important.

Allocating a teaching assistant can create a mutually dependent relationship, with a child’s independence being limited by constant adult support. Equally, the TA role can be dependent on the child’s continuing needs. It need careful oversight and review.

The child needs can challenge the teacher expertise, especially in the earlier stages of their career, where they may not have had wide experience across several year groups, so can understand where the child is on the development spectrum. Where this is the case, reference to teachers of earlier years can provide pedagogical and practical advice. In many ways, teaching standard 2, progress and outcomes, is THE key standard to support teacher understanding. What is the “normal” learning journey of children from early years through to year 6? Ok, I know this will never be linear, but there are developmental patterns which describe the possible jumps through aspects of the curriculum. Unpicking what progress “might be like”, gives a background to raising concerns.

Keeping a track of all the different needs of children is currently significant, within the change National Curriculum, where cohort expectations have been articulated, with “labels” that will be allocated at the end of Key Stages that suggest that a child may not be at the expected standard, a euphemism for possible SEN. There is a need to ensure cohort coverage while at the same time looking at the areas where individuals might not be quite at the level required.
​
I would propose the use of Exercise books as personal organisers? as a means of keeping track of the two aspects, where lesson by lesson progress through the curriculum is evidenced, but flip-out sheets record the specifics of individual needs. The whole becomes a personal portfolio, from which year-based portfolios can be developed. They also allow clarity in formative and summative assessment, as well as reporting, because the evidence is available for all viewers.
​
Picture

The bodger came to town.

14/10/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
The bodger was an important element of life a few hundred years ago. Someone who would turn up, with very simple tools, then use the available materials to effect repairs on furniture. As these were often with green timber cut from nearby trees, the repair might prove to be a more temporary measure than expected. Doing a bodge job means something a bit patched up, or cobbled together. The trouble with temporary measures is that, unless they are returned to and put right, they become permanent, until they fall apart. Some bodgers were effectively woodland artisans, often making chair legs for reputable furniture companies.
​
Picture
I’ve come to think that recent changes in the education system have the feel of a bit of a bodge job, possibly tending to be a botch job, which is far worse, as although the bodge might be serviceable, the botch may not hold for long.
We’ve had curriculum change, exam change, SEND change, assessment change, all within a very short period. In addition, there are a dozen commissioned groups looking at different aspects. While change is definitely in the air, teachers, up and down the country, are seeking to make sense of the whole, so that their children don’t suffer. While policy makers might be engaged in bodging the whole, schools and individual teachers will do what they have always done, sought to make it all work. It may not be perfect, but it will fit together, with regular reviews to check that is so.
The trouble with the changes is that, realistically, a great deal of effort has gone into making things work, over and above the day job, as curriculum has been reformed, assessment systems created, or bought, either way demanding considerable time for real understanding.
​
Picture
Assessment is likely to be a matter of contention for some time to come, as the realities of letting each school decide a system becomes apparent. Ofsted will need to come to terms with a different system on each visit. Secondary schools will receive transfer records from multiple schools, and, more than ever, are likely to put these to one side and retest the children. Transfer between schools will become complex, as systems don’t quite match up, so individual schools will come up with some form of arrival assessment to find equivalence. SEND will be affected, as any transfer between special education and mainstream will be affected in this way. Records may be less than useful. SEND will also be affected where a school seeks an EHCP assessment, where the rigour and accuracy of the internal record may be a factor in the decisions. Putting significant responsibility onto classroom teachers with regard to SEND without ensuring the quality of skill in decision making also potentially embeds another layer of issue.
​
The biggest issue is that the system is not holistic, and as a result, contains holes, through which potentially vulnerable learners might fall, not necessarily at school level, but through misunderstandings; the law of unintended consequences.
Assessment, to me, is the biggest bodge/botch job of all, in that a National system was cast aside, ostensibly because it was misused for data and because “parents didn’t understand it”. In reading the first draft of the proposed National Curriculum replacement document with the attainment target statement to essentially know and understand the contents of the curriculum, suggested, when assessment was hived off for schools to make decisions, that it had been done so in order that the curriculum could stand as read. So, however it is dressed up, in effect, children either achieve or not, with different “levels” of achievement, as a scaled score or in words. As this is based on an examination outcome, there is still room for children to have gaps in their learning, as long as they get a pass score.
​
Picture
This week, I have had a number of experiences that have brought all this to the fore; mainly a Governor briefing on the changes in assessment and a visit to a local special school for serious needs, where I am supporting a trainee teacher.
The former was something of a waste of time, in that it felt unstructured and over-generalised in scope. Maybe this was for the lay audience, but there were several ex-heads and teachers in the audience, as well as well-informed Governors. As assessment change was flagged up a couple of years ago, to be at this point with advice was significantly disappointing. Clarity was not forthcoming, nor did it appear that it would be, in the short term.

Assessment, seen as something to be done at the end of a period of study, to me is the weakest form of assessment.

Assessment for Learning, I have argued in a number of blogs, should inform all decisions. Starting with general knowledge of children, plans are created with structured tasks that enable the teacher to engage with the learning, asking the right questions to elicit thinking and to unpick any issues arising, to adjust to evidence then to reassess the journey based on outcome evidence. All this to be against a general background understanding of what can be expected of children of a similar age. End testing might check the specifics of what has been retained in knowledge terms, but to test all that has been covered often proves very difficult. Like all MOTs, it is also only really valid on the day of testing.

The visit to the Special School raised the issue of record keeping. This school, as it takes serious SEN needs, will require good understanding of the learning needs of the children who will be coming. Equally, they are required by the authority to have a system of their own for assessment, and, having selected their preferred model may find that any transfer back to mainstream will require interpretation or equivalence checking to support the transition.

Equally, the ITE trainee, while they pick up the needs of this school, may find that, in a second practice and in their first school, they encounter significantly different systems. Of course this will apply to any teacher moves.

Given the current complexity in the system as a whole, could there be a time where teachers choose to stay in one year group, to avoid having to relearn the curriculum for another, as well as having growing confidence in their assessment abilities, based on their experience of outcomes? This could mean that schools then need to find specialists in a particular year, within already limited fields of candidates, or be prepared to allow a significant settling period. There will be issues with short term cover, as supply teachers grapple with different systems.

I wonder who will get the blame for any botched system changes?
0 Comments

When is SEND?

20/2/2015

4 Comments

 
I am sure that readers of my blog will wonder why I am asking such a question, but, after the recent SEND teachmeet in Oxford, I have been left wondering where we are heading in defining children as having Special Educational Needs.

There was quite a strong SEND school group represented, and who spoke during the meeting and I do follow a range of strong SEND advocates through Twitter.

It is clear, especially from Twitter exchanges, that the recent changes to SEND documentation was causing concern among the group, as reassessment of children with pre-existing statements was not always leading to expected outcomes.

Since the Warnock report in 1978 about the status of special educational needs and her definition that, during their educational lifetime, around 20% of children might exhibit some area of personal additional need, schools have had a duty to describe and cater for the needs of a group seen as potentially vulnerable if nothing was done to support them. Systems were set up around this group, by Local Authorities, to quality assure the systems of referral and decisions.

My concern is those children who are in mainstream schools who might yet not have any specific diagnosis of need, but whose needs are regularly evident to classteachers.

While locality could be a cause of issues, subject to available staffing, essentially a child described as having Special Needs in Cornwall, and with a Statement of Educational Needs applied, would be equivalent to a similar child in Newcastle. The constant across the authorities would have been the case studies developed by the school, in association with the available external experts, using the available tools to describe the child’s lack of progress against the National Curriculum Level Descriptors which were common across all schools, even if some difference might be evident in interpretation. A case study portfolio of evidence of description of the learning and other behaviours, together with interrogation of outcomes and successive decisions and adaptations/fine tunings to evident need, would show how the child was performing compared to peers.

Where Levels and associated descriptors have been removed from September 2014, I am left wondering how schools are now seeking to describe their concerning or evident children with educational needs beyond their peers. If they are being tracked against the new National Curriculum, as there are only end of Key Stage descriptors, it will inevitably just be the programmes of study for the year group that will be available, with attendant descriptors of can or can’t do…

Do teachers know what they are looking for? Here’s a crib sheet.

Picture
Do we wait until year end to describe a child as below their peers, suggesting a developing need, or perhaps after two years that they are well below their peers and might be on track to be “below National standard”? Will teachers undertake diagnostic assessments on children to explore their range of needs? Will they ensure that records cover the whole span of time and describe classroom adaptations used and support given to need? Will, over time, a Gap Analysis of needs emerge, that can describe the case to external experts, such as Ed Psych or Speech and Language Therapy or OT? Will the school be able to describe exactly where the child is in comparison with peers?  

Are there systems within the school where expertise is regularly shared between colleagues that ensures that the vulnerable learners receive appropriate support and challenge, and not just through the class Teaching Assistants?

Picture
We still have P levels, which, in some discussions, seem to be the only currency available to describe SEND children. So a child who might formerly have been described as a level 1c,b,a, but be in year 4 or 5 and, as such, significantly behind peers, alerting the school to a need for a request for Statutory Assessment, may now have a weakened case, if the school system is not sufficiently robust. Panels judging the merits of a case may well be looking even more closely at the quality of the school evidence. So a child could get turned down through poor school records or judgements.

It can read as if there are potentially insecure systems in place within which insecure and vulnerable learners could be and may well be failed. The lack of National models has enabled localities to develop systems that appear to be causing concern at best.

Sadly it is the potentially vulnerable who may suffer, but it is a case of “Watch this space”.

It could be a case of the law of unintended consequences at play.

 

4 Comments

SEN Radio?

11/11/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Seeking greater clarity by fine tuning actions through a

Record of Actions, Discussions or Decisions, Interventions and Outcomes

(RADIO, in case you missed it!).

Building an individual case study.

Essentially, SEND practice describes a sequence of events, which seek to refine the actions and focus of attention, to identify, quantify and qualify the exact nature of a problem. Once this has been established, remedial action can take place. The longer the gap, the greater the problem can become, as further complications can become built into the experience, not least of which is learner self-esteem, affected by adult and peer responses to the circumstance.

Every teacher is a teacher of individual needs, which often identify themselves as little concerns when a learner either exceeds or does not grasp what is being expected.

The SEND framework 2014 does state that poor teaching approaches will handicap decisions on a child’s special educational needs. SEND is not a substitute for poor teaching or poor teachers. High quality teaching and learning should identify, describe and track needs within a classroom. Work sampling, annotations and record keeping will all contribute to good decisions. Some may say that this is additional work. However, it could be argued that well planned, well focused activities, with good oral and written feedback, to identified needs, in itself constitutes a reasonably clear start point of a record. An annotated personal record, for discrete individuals, as describe below should also be kept.






Picture
Teachers receive their classes from someone else, even at the earliest stages, where a parent or nursery member of staff has already become aware of little foibles, or gaps in understanding, or an area where there appears to be extra talent.

The parent is the child’s first teacher; it is to be hoped that their relationship is such that they get to know their children really well, through interactions at home and in places of interest that generate speaking and listening skills. As a Governor of a school in Gosport, as well as my own education career, I know that this is not the case, with children arriving operating at two year old levels, of speech and socialisation.

The adult role, teacher and support staff, is to be vigilant in spotting the child reactions in different situations, noting areas of concern, but also of achievement, so that a balanced picture can be built. The profiles built up during the Early Years stage is a more refined document than may have formerly been available.

If concerns emerge, there are likely to be three phases;

  1. Short (wave) term, classroom based. The teacher and other adults become aware that an area of need exists. They develop a short term plan to address the issue and agree a monitoring approach that allows them to spot and track the outcomes. Where feasible, discussions with the learner might deepen the adult understanding of the learning issues. Outcomes are checked carefully to deduce any patterns arising, which are then shared with parents and decisions reached about next steps.
  2. Medium (wave) term, involving internal specialist colleagues. Where an issue goes beyond the current capacity of the classteacher, the school internal specialist, the SENCo, should be involved to oversee the record, to discuss with the teacher and the parent possible ways forward and to agree a new plan of action in the classroom. This may involve using a discrete approach to the identified problem, with some specified time need. For example, a child with a specific reading issue might need some individualised time with an adult, whose role is to undertake a miscue analysis during each session to deduce with greater accuracy the nature of the problem. The SENCo may be involved in classroom observations, keeping records of on/off task behaviours, relationships, task application, with outcomes being photocopied and annotated to deepen the understanding of the problem, thereby refining the classroom action. Interventions strategies must be SMART targets. Too often in SEND situations, classteachers operate at too global a level, so that the refined needs of the individuals are missed, until they become more critical. There is a need for regular work sampling and annotations to describe the learning journey and issues still arising. The lack of such a record could handicap a child and the teacher, as it will be requested before specific help can be offered, especially if the school SLT has to allocate additional funding/adult support to address the issue.
  3. Long (wave) term, the school will involve a range of specialist experts, to support the diagnosis of the issue. Diagnosis depends on the quality of record keeping in the classroom and the school, if patterns are to be describe and the area for investigation is to be narrowed. As a result, a programme of action is likely to be agreed, timescales set and evidence needed identified. This is likely to be similar to the needs above, but within a refined remit.
Over time, a case study emerges, with a record of actions, discussion, decisions, interventions and outcomes. It may be, at this stage, that the collective wisdom is that there is a problem that is greater that the system capacity to identify and remediate the need. In the new SEND framework, schools will apply for consideration of an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).

The evidence file is sent to a panel for consideration, along with other applications. Each case is judged on its merits and there is no guarantee that awarding an EHCP will be the outcome. Equally, an EHCP may not guarantee extra funding or alternative education placement. The EHCP, if awarded, is quite likely to be a tighter descriptor of the learner’s individual needs, the education response to be allocated by the establishment, the timescale and regularity of reviews.

SEND issues cause teachers to become worried. I have suggested ways in which a teacher can expand their understanding of teaching and learning outcomes across the range of learners they are likely to encounter, in another post.

0 Comments

Keep Talking thinking

11/11/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
A series of tweets set a train of thought running again. I’ve already blogged on thinking, as a practical part of the classroom, seeking to see inside a child’s head.

A friend works in a special school for severely disabled children 4-19, an incredibly challenging role. In discussion recently we were exploring ideas within teaching and learning. It soon became apparent that, in order to support his learners to make progress, he had to effectively “get inside the heads” of each individual, to try to understand as well as possible what made each of them “tick”, especially those with severe communication difficulties. Inevitably there was a small element of trial and error, but with 1:1 ratios, any “misconceptions” could be addressed immediately.

I have some student teachers working in a school for moderate learning difficulties, each child unique in their presentation of need and their home environment. These students have to get to know the children really well to be able to develop appropriate plans for learning.

The notion of what makes children tick is an important one. Misunderstand this and even the most well-meaning adult can cause a situation to escalate.

Anyone watching either Educating Essex or Educating Yorkshire cannot fail to see adults seeking to understand the individual children. Even then, nothing can prevent a flare-up.

After my summer assessment visits to London schools, I reflected on these schools and their personalised, rich curriculum. Their reasoning was based on their analysis of their children’s needs. This led me to speculate about the point at which personalisation is embedded in practice.

  • If you do not see the need to differentiate, you will not do so.

  • If you believe that differentiation is a matter of simpler tasks for less able, that is all you will do.

  • If you think that an additional adult support is available, this is often portrayed as differentiation. If no extra adult, no differentiation.

  • If you view the class as a set of smaller groups with similar characteristics, you may seek to challenge them individually at different levels.

  • If you see the smaller groups as mixed ability groups of individuals, then you might see how to challenge at a personal level, modifying the group expectation.

The last two statements embed a clear expectation, of learning, use of time and potential outcomes. If based on capability, “I want to see if you can…..” The expectations embedded also drive the in-lesson conversations, questions and on-going feedback. Coupled with exploratory discussions in-lesson and the use of exemplars, they are the checks and balances to evaluation, by children and the teacher after the lesson, through well define written feedback.

Picture
Successful teaching and learning is not just the product of a sequence of activities to be done at specific times. That way lies stereotype teaching and limited learning. The strategic thinking of the teacher in defining the learning journey of children embeds the points at which the children will take over and become producers of learning, deepening the experience of both learner and teacher as skills are demonstrated which can be further refined at  a later date.

Thinking is an essential component of learning; without it a learner would not exist, except in the most passive form, the stereotypical “empty jug”.

How can we ever know what is going on in a learner’s head, unless there are opportunities for them to express their ideas cogently, with the view that all expression is a “draft thought”, capable of challenge and alteration? This can occur in writing, but writing is likely to have already gone through a thought process before being produced. However, seen as a draft, writing can be supportive of developmental conversation, orally or through effective marking.

Therefore talk would appear to be a major component of learning experience. To make real progress in learning, learners need to make sense of both what they know and how they know it. They need to have a partner relationship to ensure they become independent producers, not just passive consumers of learning.

Picture
We talk of learning journeys for children. It is possible to use the idea of a journey to support a child’s articulation of what they are thinking and reflecting on how their ideas have changed. Essentially the learner becomes the storyteller of an episode of learning, using recount in as detailed a form as possible to put across an idea. Storyboarding, or developmental notes, can support the expressive process. Their audience, members of the class, including the teacher, can ask for clarification and provide feedback. Learning thereby becomes a collegiate project.

Working with a year two class, I asked a group of children to unpick how they thought their way through a multiplication equation, step by step instructions, which they then asked a peer to follow, as a check mechanism. This produced quite deep discussions and ironed out a number of misconceptions on the way, especially as they were identified and then easily addressed.

Science with a year four class entailed a challenge to set up a fair test to find the best paper to send a parcel through the post. Having had earlier experience of fair tests, groups of four were given time to come up with a proposal of how to proceed with the test, then time to present this to others. Shared thinking ironed out issues and allowed all to proceed.

Thinking is supported by language and language is further developed by articulating thinking. Talking things through is the means by which children’s understanding of their own learning is deepened.

The fundamentals of education; thinking and talking?

0 Comments

If you could read my mind,…….

11/11/2014

0 Comments

 
..but that is exactly what being a good teacher does imply. Teaching is not just talking at children, telling them stuff; it’s part storytelling, with a clarity of storyline and enhanced vocabulary, including the essential subject language, which , having engaged the listeners and when investigated together, provides the basis upon which a child can pursue their own thinking.

Knowing your children and your subject matter well is a pre-requisite of good preparation. Effective planning matches challenge to children. Collecting/creating your own resources allows the teacher to direct learning effectively, adapting the task challenge within the lesson. Good and better teachers do this almost intuitively, as they have mentally planned, rehearsed strategies and learning directions,  even if it’s not all on paper. They are the lesson directors, unscripted, but responsive to needs. Some people just make teaching look easy. They have embedded the essence of teaching and learning and just do it effortlessly.


Picture
Developing independent learners is stated in many learning policies. 

As a Primary/Middle trained teacher, I started teaching sciences in a Secondary school, but found that I missed many aspects of the Primary classroom. When asked what I taught, initially I’d reply “Sciences”, but on transfer began to answer “children”. Maybe something as simple as that offers an insight into some current tensions. Primary teachers, many in Special schools and some, dealing with individual needs in Secondary schools are dealing with the whole child all of the time, while a proportion, taking subject classes, especially for exams, have the imperative to impart a “body of knowledge” as well as a love for the subject. The body of knowledge can take a higher profile than the needs of the learners, especially as the exam gets closer.

Children in Early Years, and younger demonstrate independence in approaching learning situations. These are often exploratory, with an adult guide intervening. Experimentation leads to questions and seeking solutions. They are not absolutist in this, but they are building conceptual frames within which to lodge information. Play is an important element in learning, whether child or adult. Play is structured and unstructured engagement with a task, seeking to find pattern or match to earlier experience, applying prior learning to understand the new experience.

Children don’t necessarily see the world in subjects, that’s an organisational construct. Deconstructing the curriculum into subjects allows someone to determine the essential knowledge to be learned and to create a timetable within which it will be delivered.

Children in the early stages of learning, by definition, have not established a body of knowledge. They investigate the world from birth instinctively, and in a more determined way from the time they develop the skills of focussing and touching. Nobody “teaches” them, but parents put experiences in their way and help them to make sense of what’s happening.

For many years schools have adopted a “spiral curriculum” approach, with learning starting very broadly, experience based, embedding essential information at an appropriate time, refining the learning to the needs of the developing learners. This has some reference to the earlier Piagetian notion of concrete and abstract learners. Subjects, discrete or in themed topics, provided the vehicles for study. As an adult learner, I still find it useful to have an overview of a subject within which I can slot new ideas, a frame of reference. I like to know my “learning journey”.

Reference to prior learning is an essential aspect of new learning, developing the context, bringing the known to the fore, ensuring that there is a base upon which to found the next steps. Learners need to be enthused into learning, distracting them from the many external distractions; just think how you feel when it gets to “staff meeting o’clock” and the need to switch brains. How do learners feel, having a different lesson focus every hour or so? “I’ve just got my head around that, and now I’m in …” Is it a surprise that some children find learning difficult?

The subject based, hour by hour change approach is an organisational construct. Problem solving crosses subject boundaries and spans larger amounts of time, demanding a broad set of personal capabilities as well as some essential knowledge. Knowledge is, with the internet, easily available, with apps like “You tube” being almost ubiquitous in supporting a “how to approach”.

Can you be a teacher without learners? Can you be a learner without a teacher?

He couldn't move a mountain, Nor pull down a big old tree-ee
But my daddy became a mighty big man, With a simple philosophy

Do what you do do well boy, Do what you do do we-ell
Give your love and all of your heart, And do what you do do well   Ned Miller



Picture
Teach what you do teach well……

Over the recent past, this question has been circling around the parts of my brain not being fully utilised for other purposes, with an occasional nudge from bloggers sharing their slants on current education issues.

There seems to be articulation of dilemmas across the spectrum, from EYFS to secondary, to teach or not, to talk as a teacher or not, neuroscience and learning styles (love or hate), limits to learning, for and against some form of target setting.

It can be mind-blowing, but I have the feeling that it represents significant personal tension within classroom practice, some of which is caused by articulated expectations from higher up the “power levels”. Teachers want to “get it right” for the children whom they teach. This raises a range of issues and the stakes are getting higher, as Ofsted judgements are ratcheted up.

There’s often a feeling that “it works for them so I’ll copy it” is ok, while others are demanding evidence and absolute proof of the effectiveness of an approach before it should be adopted.

Perhaps this gets to the nub of my dilemma. Throughout my teaching career I have been fortunate to meet colleagues from other schools prepared to share their practice in detail, especially if there were outcomes suggesting that it was having an impact on their learners. Some attendees of training evenings would immediately articulate the view that they’d be using the ideas the next day. Where I did try this, quite often the impact was not as predicted, so I became more adept at collecting ideas, mulling them over and selecting those that would have impact, having prepared the classroom and class beforehand.

It’s a case of developing a “toolkit” and choosing the right tools for the job. A bad workman blames his tools and cheap tools support a botched job.

Bright ideas are not always immediately transferrable, because the place, the teacher or the learners are not prepared. You can appear to be teaching your socks off in a situation like this and it won’t work. Misjudged and mismatched, the teaching misses the point. Unless the approach is tailored to the local need, it has a possibility of feeding into poor learning experience.

You can’t teach if the learners aren’t ready. 

Teaching and learning are two sides of the same coin.

Teaching will always include the need to impart information to a learner. That should always be done efficiently and effectively, utilising the best available resources, which includes the teacher voice, playing a game of “pass the parcel”, something I know, enjoy and understand and want to share. In many ways, because this is totally in the hands of the teacher, apart from unwarranted or unhelpful interruptions, it should work to script.

Learning is passed to the learners. The need time to mull over information, to make sense of it against known information, work with it, reshape ideas and lodge them into their memory for retention. Young learners need reminding what they know from time to time, as their memories are fallible. Overlearning for some is needed. Significant support for some needs to be considered; but how much, for how long and from whom?

It strikes me that we need to stop bickering in the playground and start looking at the learning journeys of children. After all, it will be their world and we’ll need them to take a lead.


Kahlil Gibran:      Teaching:

Then said a teacher, "Speak to us of Teaching." And he said: No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of our knowledge.

The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness.

If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.

The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.

The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it.

And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither.

For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.

And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth.

Picture
0 Comments

Assessment; righting wrongs?

20/10/2014

0 Comments

 
The road is long, with many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where, who knows when.

But I'm strong, strong enough to carry him
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

Where assessment went wrong and how it could come right.

Picture
Picture
Elevating assessment almost to the level of a science in schools was always likely to be flawed, as the system is based on teacher judgement and that, inevitably suffers from individual insights, based on their experiences. Younger teachers have limited experience so do not have a clear frame of reference against which to make accurate judgements. Older teachers can assume that they have “cracked” assessment and may, by default introduce “time-saving” ways into practice, which, over time, embed inaccuracies.

Sharing good practice can be flawed, as the good practice has been reflected upon, trialled and implemented in a specific situation, by a specific teacher/school. To seek to take and replicate, without considering the contexts and the insights of the developer, can lead to rapid failure.

Level descriptors, in themselves, were a useful guide to expectation and progress, especially in the Primary school. I can accept that they became more problematic in Secondary, as they appeared to become less quantifiable. 

There is one area where issues have never really been addressed, transition within schools and transfer between schools, where receiving teachers and schools seek to say that the preceding experience and judgement was flawed, in doing so, downgrading the professional judgement of a colleague. Level 3 at KS1-2 and 5/6 at KS2-3 transfer has been problematic for the past 27 years.

This may be a result of the high stakes now attached to progress and outcomes. If a Junior school takes in a high proportion of level 3, they have to make progress to 5/6 as an expectation, similarly for 5/6 entering Secondary. It was salutary to hear the Secondary that received children from the Primary cluster talk of retesting on arrival; nothing changes…

Essentially, I think assessment, as a process of interrogating learning, went wrong when it was moved from the level descriptor words, through sub levels, which were so fine-tuned that they were virtually impossible to plan tasks for, then to APP recording sheets, which, for every child, resulted in a bureaucratic nightmare for teachers.

However, before we throw everything away, consider whether APP style sheets could support the fine needs of tracking SEND children, as they do largely describe a step by step approach which could support teacher thinking.

Equally, there may be a case for revisiting the wording of levelness, to see how they can be adjusted to better suit the needs of the new curriculum. The words are the essential component of the process, in that they can be shared, in an appropriate form, to create mental and written targets for personal effort.

A number of new systems that have been developed and shared, especially by Secondary teachers, have seemed to be based on an alphabetical or numeric grading system. There is the implication behind some, that they are linked to GCSE grades, over a three/four/five year period. Some have levels linked too as a cross-over reference. There is potential in these systems to see a future where inaccuracies could still emerge.   

In doing all this, assessment, to my mind, has become more about the teacher and less about the learner as part of the learning dynamics.

Picture
Picture
How it could come “right”

Reflections on one training event and the Teaching and Learning Takeover conference (TLT14), which brought together three days of thinking about assessment, both to deliver and then to listen to four presentations during TLT14. This post will use both slides from my presentation and tweeted thoughts from TLT14 to illustrate.  

Introducing a talk on assessment to a group of teachers recently, I asked if anyone was teaching when the original National Curriculum was introduced. I should probably have how many of them were alive then.

Picture
There is a diminishing group still practicing in education, who can actively remember the inception of the National Curriculum.

It was, inevitably, a cumbersome beast, created by expert groups in each subject, with a shelf-full of files to tell everyone what should be done. It caused a stir, as teachers, who had been used to working in their own ways, had to reflect on their practice against a new benchmark. In reality, apart from tweaking a few aspects of some subjects, and reordering some topics, for most schools in my area, there appeared to be limited impact.

Over time, there were reviews and slimming down of the documentation. However, there were three parts to the Curriculum, the pedagogy; usually the first section, of differing lengths. The subject specifications and the level descriptors.

As the curriculum and the pedagogy were reasonably solid aspects of local school, it was the level descriptors which caught the professional eye. In fact, it was the level descriptors that had the biggest impact in the raising of teacher expectations of learning outcomes, as they articulated criteria to look for in children’s work, which showed that they were showing certain capabilities. As this was across a range of subjects, the quality of expectation rose, even in subjects where teachers felt a little uncomfortable. Once they had had help in creating appropriate tasks, they then knew what to look for during the task, and they also knew what to look for next. Learning processes had a structure.

There is a difference between knowing how to do something and knowing something. The Primary curriculum became an amalgamation of learning contexts with knowledge and process outcomes. When I became a head in 1990, we developed internal topic specifications across all aspects of learning, using the local inspector/advisor service, to establish a very strong learning narrative that covered both the content and the process needs. Assessment was built into the system, seeking to establish working levels, so that future planning was better focused, rather than a relentless focus on every individual. This latter point was an area for further reflection, over time.

Picture
Teachers make a wide range of decisions all of the time, some rapid, due to the immediacy of the situation, some more reflective and needing dialogue with colleagues.

What is assessment? In a nutshell, it impacts on everything that a teacher does; it is in essence thinking about children, where they are and what they need to learn next.


 
Picture
It links with Growth Mindset. As Sir Ken Robinson says in one of his talks; Why wouldn’t you?

Is there an alternative to growing learners?

It can also link with how you feel about yourself, as a person and a learner.

Picture
Picture
Informed teacher judgement is critical.

It can be an enhancing or a limiting factor in learner development. Teachers need to know their subject at an appropriate level to lead the children, through the stages of development of subject specific skills. Inevitably, with thirty children in the class, there will be nuances and subtleties that apply to individuals. Knowing the children really well is a prerequisite to them being supported to make progress, with guidance and feedback fine-tuned to their emerging needs.

Subject development has always suggested to me a mental model akin to a map, with stages to be reached along the way. Other useful analogies might be a ladder or even mountaineering, which I particularly like, as a metaphor, as it also embeds the notion of risk. There’s not very much risk at a desk.

It is also worth considering though, Tom Sherington's "Fuzzy edges" approach to assessment; always acknowledge that the judgement may not be absolute. Sort of ok, with more time and room to think, might be the route to sustained development. Right/wrong could become a block for some.

 
Picture
Planning for learning is a multi-faceted discipline, which allows the short term decisions to be adaptable to emergent needs.
Picture
Targeting learner improvement is a part of the assessment process.

Where you put the targets and how actively they are a constituent part of the learning, feedback and marking will help to determine the speed and dynamics of progress.
Often in schools, and a straw poll at the training day showed the reality, targets are inside or outside book covers. Once the book is opened, they cannot be seen by teacher or learner so they cannot be a constituent part of learning dialogue within a lesson.  

 
Picture
Modelling, showing, sharing exemplars, all go to support learner visualisation of what they are attempting to do.

Displays of good outcomes with the process of development also shared and discussed is an essential component.

How I got there/ how you get there, is as important as the finished outcome.

Picture
Picture
Picture
And, in case anyone is wondering why they should be considering all these things; quite simply because, it is in the Teaching Standards, where the teacher role is to maximise outcomes.
Picture
0 Comments

Planning Learning

12/10/2014

1 Comment

 
Unpicking the analyse-plan-do-review-record cycle.

Seeking adaptability in lessons as a result of more dynamic planning approaches.

Planning for learning will always be an issue for teachers, in that there are multiple layers of responsibility to be contained within the plan. However, planning is the bedrock of the order and organisation that enables a teacher to run a successful class and a head to run a successful school. The ultimate in planning allows a teacher to move towards personalised approaches, allowing individual children to have their needs accommodated. There are significant links with project management, and it is no surprise that earlier incarnations of thematic work were called projects. The sadness was that these projects sometimes came to an abrupt end due to time pressures, lack of resources or some other shortfall.

Teachers and schools have a number of variables to consider in planning, learning contexts, use of space, resources of all types, time, as well as the individual learning and emotional needs of the children. A good knowledge of the curriculum is essential, as well as a clear understanding of the potential of ICT to support learning. If any of these variables are not considered, learning can be unsuccessful, i.e. poorly structured topic, lack of appropriate space, table or floor, limited resources or poor accessibility, inadequate time available for development and completion. If the children’s needs are not respected, many may not make progress.

There are current debates about whether the curriculum should be built from the needs of the children or whether it is better to define the contexts within which children will learn. The Rose and Cambridge reviews suggested learning within domains, rather than subjects. It seems to be the case that current Government thinking errs towards retention of subjects and knowledge. Either way, the learning context for the children and whether they cover a sufficiently broad curriculum will ultimately be determined by their teacher.

Most schools plan at different timescales, whole school, annual plans, medium term (1-6 weeks) and then teacher short term plans. A great deal of planning will have gone into the stage of the teacher planning a lesson. Teachers worry most about short-term planning and some schools demand significant detail at that point, which creates a very heavy bureaucratic workload to create something that is ultimately a teacher aide memoire.

There is a strong argument for allowing the short term plans to be determined by the teacher, if the medium term plans are strong guides, but with the fall-back position that plans would be required if the teaching required improvement. For many teachers, a reflective log book would be sufficient; in fact I have met teachers whose schools require specific short term plans, which the teacher then reinterprets to be easily accessible. Are short term plans any use if they do not help short term cover teachers to be able to pick up exactly what is needed?

If planning included plans for marking, then workload issues could be examined more clearly.

Picture
Overview school plans provide a level of confidence for a school in knowing that there is a baseline of curriculum coverage. These can be created as an amalgam of the plans for each year group as a school map. It is important for the school to interpret National documentation to specify the parameters of the subject areas and the depth of study within the subject in order for the school to be able to demonstrate curriculum coverage, as well as an intention to develop and deepen the children’s study skills.

The value of overview planning should not be underestimated. A broad view of any journey is useful to ensure that, even if there is some tangential deviation from the original plan, there is clarity to the ultimate goals. Where planning is based on short term goal setting, it may not be possible to achieve the further goals within the timescales allowed.

Picture
Annual planning for each class, as an overview of learning and teaching areas, ensures that a teacher knows the general dynamics of the year, based on known topic areas in each subject. Teachers can have confidence in knowing the direction of each term, so that each topic block can be the proper focus for learning without having to be thinking of the next one as a whole. The use of an annual plan can also allow learning needs to be progressive, so that the benefits of one piece of learning can have an impact on subsequent learning, or be recombining the topics, teachers can creatively link subject areas within purposeful cross-curricular themes. The example given shows the linking of curriculum areas to the benefit of learning as a whole, while still allowing those areas that cannot be linked to have a discrete place.
Picture
Medium term planning . There is no absolute definition of medium term planning, except that it is neither long term, nor short term. It can therefore mean anything from two to six to ten weeks. Many teachers have become locked into half term blocks as their medium term planning. The longer the medium term, the more compromised can be personalised target setting for children’s progress, unless there is a more regular update of these. Medium term planning is a means of describing the learning journeys of children over a timescale, across the curriculum.

In the annual plan shown, there was a clear intention by the teacher to use the first two and a half weeks of the year to establish the expectations within story writing, using the two page approach to writing (see descriptor), to get the children into certain ways of working and thinking. Poetry, art and ICT were closely linked to the process. The remainder of the curriculum during that period was described within more discrete subjects.

In this school, every subject area had a clear descriptor, a specification, of each of the subjects in the planner, so teachers knew what to teach and had suggestions as to how to teach the subject, based on previous experiences with the topic. The essence of the curriculum planning was topic, for interest and engagement, English, within every subject, and mathematics, where it was practical and useful, with DT, ICT and Art being used as support subjects to provide breadth of experience and exploration. Music and RE would occasionally be linked, but would also be developed separately. Aspects of PE and Music were also taken by experts as part of teacher PPA time.

Learning is a dynamic entity. Children should be presented with challenging opportunities with which they can engage. The best situations allow them some independence in decision making, identifying for themselves areas where they need to address a skill or knowledge shortage, thus leading to bespoke intervention. The National Curriculum as it currently stands makes very clear statements of this intention, describing both the contexts for learning and the expectation of learners.

Picture
Short term planning is that which a teacher takes into the classroom in order to effectively be able to run the class during the day, or for the week. There are various strategies employed for this. Some teachers now plan for the early part of the week, leaving the planning for Thursday and Friday to be able to cater for the outcomes of the earlier teaching and learning. Personal planning needs to take account of the resources needed for T&L, the space available to accommodate that learning, the time allocated to the fulfilling of the task and the deployment of any additional adults.

Moving towards personalisation, over the medium term, is often a very challenging aspect of a teacher’s thinking, in that it brings together the three dimensional aspects of planning. Whereas the curriculum aspects are linear, simply fitting subject blocks into a timeline, personalisation of the curriculum demands a detailed knowledge of each individual child. That can be accomplished in stages, utilising differentiation by outcome in the early stages, to establish ability levels more succinctly, in order to tailor tasks that provide challenge. Initial sifting will allow a generalised grouping by general ability, into perhaps four or five groups, e.g. level 5,4,3,2,1. If the capabilities of each group can be described with care, tasks can be set to validate these judgements. If within each group the range can be described, personalised challenge can be presented as individualised “progress ladders” based on the next few learning targets. Alternatively teachers can state the individualised expectation of specific children. An example might be the top or bottom of the ability group. Challenge is the key to educational success and the progress of individuals leads to progress across the class.

Task setting for differential challenge is the next layer of consideration. Tasks need to match the learning needs of the group of children, so differentiation is the key element. The challenge for a level five child in a class will be significantly more challenging than that for a level one child, in terms of complexity of tasking, but also potentially in the presentation of the task to the child and the necessary support. The former may be given an investigation with personal decision making embedded, whereas the latter may require step by step guidance from a knowledgeable other, with differential reading challenge provided by a larger font size. Time allowed needs to be carefully planned.

Task setting in this way is the ultimate end of teaching and learning. The original analyses of children’s abilities and the curriculum context have been refined into a clear plan of action, which is then embedded into classroom practice. The outcomes are reviewed, notice taken of anomalies and adjustments made to subsequent learning challenges. This approach to the planning process embeds the assessment knowledge at the beginning of the learning process, as it provides the background to challenge and target setting, dictates the expectations within the learning activity and the means of engaging the children, through potentially differential input or presentation and questioning. It also guides the intervention strategy of the teacher, as (s)he engages with the learning expectations, offering support or additional challenge as necessary to refine or redefine the activity.

Modelling the decision making cycle of teaching and learning, in line with teacher professional standards.


Picture
Planning is never easy, but in this case it is the means by which children of all abilities are supported to make progress in learning. Try unpicking and describing your own classroom practice. That’s not always easy either!

Just for information, here’s an outline planning document for ITE students, which focuses on the dynamic elements rather than the script.

Picture
1 Comment

Take five children

11/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Amran, Bridget, Caroline, Dhuha and Edward all go to the same school. In fact they are in the same class, with Mrs R, who has been the class teacher of this year group for some time. She knows all that there is to know about the needs of year five.

The children live close to each other, three on a pleasant estate, while two live in the flats nearby. All are near enough to the local park, so not only do they see each other at school, but they go to tea at each other’s houses, have sleepovers and regularly play together, in the park or in one another’s gardens. They are very good friends and call themselves the Park-School Gang.

They know each other really well, laugh often at everyone’s little habits. Amran can be very bossy. He’s very confident, goes regularly to museums and galleries, to the cinema and theatre. He lives in the biggest house on the estate; both parents work in law and they have the biggest garden and have a massive trampoline and a swimming pool, so summer evenings are often in Amran’s garden. Amran thinks his parents want him to go to a private school when they leave next year and he’s got a personal tutor to help with entrance exams.

Picture
Edward’s the quiet one, who often seems to be just tagging along with the others. Although he doesn’t always say a lot, the gang like him to come along, because he knows so much about nature and when they spot something new in the park or elsewhere, they point it out to him and he’s able to tell them volumes of interesting detail. He’s always been like that with his creepy crawlies; catching them and keeping them by his bedside so that he can observe them closely. The gang have nicknamed him Chris Packham, which he feels is wonderful.

Bridget, Caroline and Dhuha are in the middle of the class. They work on the same table, for most things, generally do the same work, but the difference is that, while Bridget gets things right most of the time, Caroline and Dhuha often make what the teacher calls silly mistakes and are made to do work twice or more. Even then Dhuha might still get the work wrong and get a “see me” comment. Dhuha spends quite a bit of time seeing the teacher.

In the end of year tests in years 1,2,3 and 4, the five children were in the same order; Amran, Bridget, Caroline, Dhuha and Edward, who is always last. It’s happened so often that they’ve just got used to that. Places in the class might shuffle a little, especially if someone new arrives, but the five are always in the same positions relative to each other.

Amran and Bridget sometimes get harder work than the others, while the teacher works with Caroline and Dhuha and the other middles. Edward is often working with Miss S, the class teaching assistant, getting a lot of help with his work, or doing something completely different outside the classroom, as Mrs R says that he gets distracted. He seems to miss a lot of the interesting lessons.

They have started to talk about Secondary schools, probably because Amran’s been talking about his tutor. Bridget, Caroline and Dhuha seem likely to go to the local Secondary school. It’s apparently quite good, according to older siblings and friends. The worry they have is with the setting, as they think they’ll be in different sets according to their test scores. They are all worried for Edward, mainly because they overheard Mrs R talking with Miss S and they were discussing “special school”. They know that Edward’s been spending time with a group of different grown-ups dong tests. They’d like to be able to help him in some way, but he switches off when they try to help with reading and writing.

But just suppose:-

  • Edward meets a teacher who identifies his specific needs and adopt appropriate strategies, including concrete apparatus and physical, drawn and mental images, coupled with lots of talk, that enable him to make sense of subjects which have so far eluded him.
  • Amran meets up with some characters who persuade him to move away from his comfortable existence into more dangerous situations.
  • Bridget, Caroline and Dhuha all find subjects which really appeal, providing them with essential motivation and engagement with school, allowing their work ethic to grow and secure exam success.
Life can sometimes be e bit of a lottery. Education shouldn’t. All children should meet teachers who have their individual needs at the heart of their practice.

September 2014

The Amrans, Bridgets, Carolines, Dhuhas and Edwards will all still exist in classrooms. The implications of the expectation that 85% of the children will succeed at a level equal to the former level 4b in order to be “Secondary Ready”, will put the Dhuhas of the class under significant pressure. Whereas previously, Dhuha might transfer with a 3a/b, need a little extra help, possibly a summer revision camp, he may face the prospect of being called a failure, unless of course, he’s made appropriate progress from KS1 tests. Dhuha, who’s jogging along at the 14th centile, but, classed as a failure by some, he may well start demotivated, whereas a child in the 15th centile will be classed as a success as they have achieved as expected.

There will be a significant number of children, the lower third of ability, whose performance might lead to pressure from adults. Some of these children may have significant and possibly undiagnosed individual learning needs.

The Bridgets and Amrans will need to be stretched and challenged, with skills and knowledge drawn from subsequent year groups. As some of these are topic/content specific, there will be issues arising. So, instead of a class possibly spanning levels 1-6. We could have classes spanning years 1-7/8 in ability. The complexities are huge.

Concurrent SEN changes might cause Edward and his teachers prolonged problems, as the teacher is to become the front-line role in identification of and intervention to needs. Record keeping will be essential, so that detailed discussions with the school SENCo might result in further investigation, internally or by using an outside expert such as an Educational Psychologist. Edward might need one of the new Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP), but this might depend on the track record of identification, intervention and diagnostic engagement, as a case study, showing that his needs are extreme. Edward could find that he’s not quite poor enough to qualify for an EHCP, but remains in mainstream with his needs.

Amran will probably get to his private school easily, due to a combination of ability and the private tutor.

0 Comments

Individual needs

11/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
It’s been an interesting few days of pensive activity, starting with the draft SEN framework for September 2014 and considering the needs of schools and teachers to be able to work within the processes.Inevitably, the whole comes down to the needs of individual children, how to make judgements about their ability, their progress and comparisons with peers. Teacher judgement is a mysterious beast, as it is likely to be composed of many facets, some deriving from their experience, some from research, some from moderation activities, but mostly from their internal meters, calibrated from a combination of the elements above. I have written at more length on teacher judgement as formative assessment, based on a frame of reference. There are several other posts on the blog which look at aspects of levelness.

In any school context, there will be a range of achievement from low to high. Examples of work outcomes, collated into an exemplar portfolio, can provide baselines against which progress can be measured. A language, similar to levelness, is likely to be applied to describe the subtleties that contribute to a decision that progress has been made. A portfolio is a very good resource for newly qualified teachers and teachers new to the school, or to a year group. If you have never seen a level 5 piece of work, or an A* piece, how would you know what it looked like and what to look for? It would also act as an exemplar to back up teacher judgements on transfer, if collated as a transfer magazine.

If children are doing well, as defined by the expected range of outcomes for a year group, teachers, parents and learners are likely to be happy, with positive feedback and guidance supporting the learners to continue and accept further challenge.

Picture
But if we look at child x, who might be in the lower reaches of attainment for the year group, a different scenario can evolve. If child x is lucky, the school will have systems in place that allow support and progression from the current ability. Differential challenge in class, coupled with targeted support and guidance can ensure that slippage is minimised.

What happens when child x starts to really fall behind peers, to a point where a teacher and school suspect some additional needs exist?

The diagram above seeks to articulate steps that can be taken and which would fit within the requirements of the new SEN approach.

If a child falls behind others in a class or year group:-

  • Parents should be aware at the earliest stages and be offered support and guidance to help at home.
  • The school SENCo should be made aware of concerns and the ensuing professional dialogue may propose specific courses of action to be tried in the classroom.
  • Teacher thinking should be captured on lesson plans, to demonstrate clearly adaptations to lessons and outcomes.
  • Marking work (possibly on a photocopy) should become more diagnostic and more focused on specifics to support progress.
  • In-class available support, from teacher and Teaching Assistant, should be available and deployed effectively.
  • A clear descriptor of the child, based on some kind of SWOT analysis creates a background statement, a summary of the current position.
  • Individual Education Plans (which are not mentioned in the new framework, but which often were inactive documents), could be replaced by some kind of Personal Action Plans to be developed and enacted, with reporting to parents and SENCo at specific intervals, within an internal Team Around the Child discussion.
  • External expertise should be sought, should child x’s needs exceed the school capacity to understand and cater for appropriately.
  • As difficulties become greater or more obvious, the need for what was a Statement of Need, now to become an Education, Health and Care Plan, will be more clearly articulated in a Case Study, collating the available history of descriptors, intervention and outcomes.
  • An EHCP may, or may not be appropriate, decided by the LA, and may, as now, specify the help that the school should provide. Either way, the process is cyclic, and should be based on excellent communication.
The argument is one of comparison, a child compared with peers. Where we have lost national levels and a requirement for a school to devise it’s own, a lack of rigour could further handicap a child, if they should have an EHCP, but is unable to obtain one because the school system is weak.

There is a clear statement in the draft SEN framework 2014 that states that intervention should not be seen as a substitute for poor teaching. Extrapolated further, this could equally read that a child will not get an EHCP intervention to substitute for a poor school system.

Time to look at the whole system, including assessment and record keeping.

0 Comments

The 2014 SEN framework

11/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Overview and implications

Writing up my notes from a couple of County briefings on the draft SEN framework, recently passed through Parliament, it struck me that notes on the website might help. There are other insights on line, which may provide greater detail on specific issues, so please keep browsing. SEN change is becoming very important and will have significant impact in each classroom and on each classteacher.

Applies to education until 25 years of age.

Early Years settings and Schools must have a designated and qualified SENCo, who can provide support and guidance to staff and parents. They will also act as a link between the school and external providers of specialist support.

There are four areas of SEN description in the new framework

  • Communication and Interaction
  • Cognition and Learning
  • Social, Mental and Emotional Health
  • Sensory and/or Physical needs.
NB MLD and reference to behaviour have been removed. “Behavioural difficulties do not necessarily mean that a child or young person (CYP) has a SEN and should not automatically lead to a pupil being registered as having SEN”.

Categories, such as School Action and School Action+ are removed, with a single category of Additional Needs replacing. It is expected that the majority of children in mainstream education will have their needs met. In significant cases, the current Statement will be replaced by an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan.

The classteacher will be responsible for the progress of all children on their class register. This will be a consideration within Performance Management and possibly have a bearing on Performance Related Pay. The teacher knowledge of SEN should be a part of PM conversations. There may be a need for CPD for staff in this area.

There is no mention of IEPs (Individual Education Plans), but early identification of SEN should be built into monitoring the progress of all children. Planning should take account of all needs. It has been interesting to note that the process of analyse-plan-do review-record is an underpinning statement within the policy, as it is an underpinning of the IQM scheme.

Regular reviews should be built in to practice, with meetings with parents expected, as now with IEPs. There is a focus on outcomes, which will also be a focus for Ofsted inspections.

High quality teaching is an expectation. Any judgement of SEN will be made against judgements of teaching. A child cannot have a judgement of SEN if teaching is inadequate. Advice should be actively sought from the SENCo and other internal experts to ensure that effective teaching approaches are used to help pupils make progress towards agreed outcomes.

The school SENCo role is a statutory duty upon a school. They are responsible for coordination of provision for children with SEN. Informing, identifying, monitoring, securing services, inclusion, training, record-keeping. They should be a qualified teacher, who, post 2009 holds the National award for SEN coordination, within 3 years of appointment.

“Where pupils continue to make inadequate progress despite high quality teaching targeted at their areas of need, the classteacher, working with the SENCo, should assess whether the child has a significant learning difficulty. Where this is the case, there should be an agreement about the SEN support that is required to support the child.”
Note the emphasis on the classteacher, who is being seen as the first level of the descriptor of needs, supporting possible diagnosis with support.

SEN support in schools is described as graduated, based on analyse, plan, do review, record. It should involve parents in conversation at the earliest stages. Record keeping is essential, from the classroom plans to TA/teacher interventions. Plans should be shared effectively, so that parents can be partners.

Where there is a level of concern, after a series of interventions that, despite high quality provision, have not had demonstrable impact, an application can be made for an Education, Health and Care Assessment. The request can come from a parent, the young person, school, post-16 providers, and health or care professionals. The LA collates evidence and must secure EHC assessment if “opinion the child has or may have SEN.” Decision on assessment must be made within six weeks, with bodies asked for information responding asap within the six weeks. As now, the LA has to approach a wide range of external advisers; essential that these have been involved with the CYP before the assessment is requested, so that they can express a view. Will have regard to the four categories of SEN need.

Assessment should take a maximum of 20 weeks, as opposed to the 26 weeks currently. A parent will be informed within 16 weeks if an EHC plan not needed. If agreed, 15 days for agreement from YP/parents, then 15 days for the institution, before being quoted in the plan. There is a right to appeal at all stages.

The plan should be maintained and reviewed in the same way as a Statement currently. Health services specified supplied by the Clinical Commissioning Group or NHS. There is a feeling that the care needs flow from the 1989 Children’s Act.

The LA can cease a plan if no longer responsible for the child with SEN. The LA may deem a plan “no longer necessary”, if evidence of outcomes being achieved. The EHC plan ceases at the end of the academic year where a young person turns 25.

There is an option for a parent/YP to hold the Personal Budget, but this can be rejected under certain circumstances, judged by personal capability.

School SEN Information report

The setting should publish on the website a document outlining their approach to SEN identification and how needs are met. This will include:-

  • Identifying and assessing SEN.
  • Reviewing progress to agreed outcomes.
  • Supporting CYP at points of transition and transfer, especially where vulnerable.
  • Adaptations to the curriculum and specific programmes followed.
  • Resources available to support specific needs.
  • External expertise available and how it is secured.
  • Assessing the effectiveness of SEN provision; reporting to Governors.
  • Enabling CYP to access the whole experience, including extra-curricular and off-site experience.
  • Supporting and improving emotional and social development and measures to prevent bullying.
Local offer

There is a duty on Local Authorities to identify, collate and disseminate information about locally available provision which can be accessed, through a clear website, by educational institution or CYP to support the CYP with SEN. It should be easy to access and navigate. Inevitably, this will vary from LA to LA, depending on the available, identified expertise.

Expertise available within a school setting should be included within the Local Offer to make best use of local expertise.

Funding

Schools will receive allocated resources to support additional needs which are not ring fenced. Within their budgets and available resources, schools must provide high quality appropriate support. Costs of special educational provision beyond a nationally prescribed threshold per CYP are met by the responsible local authority (currently £6000)

Admissions and Inclusion

  • Assumption that the majority of CYP with SEN will be in mainstream education settings.
  • A child with SEN but without an EHC plan must be educated in mainstream.
  • CYP and parent preference should be met where possible.
  • CYP with EHC plan and parent can apply for specific institution.
  • Equality act 2010, prohibits discrimination against disable CYP in respect of admissions for reasons related to disability.
Next steps for legislation

Spring 2014 Royal Assent expected (subject to Parliament)

Transition arrangements to be clarified by DfE.

September 2014 implementation.

References

Kent and Lambeth Pathfinder meetings

Andre Imich SEN and disability adviser- DfE.

Part 2 SEN Changes, further reflectionsThere are more questions than answers… and the more I find out, the less I know…

IQM’s most viewed post in one weekend, was a summary of the draft SEN proposals due to be implemented in September 2014.

Inevitably, some questions were asked by colleagues, seeking clarity.  Some I was able to answer, from recently acquired information. Others remain. Many questions are likely only to be asked when the bill becomes statutory and reflections on embedding the new system in practice becomes a reality.

I can see issues arising, for all participants, some due to the vagaries of the new legislation, some to the recognition that class teachers will be held accountable for progress of children with SEN in their class(es), some to internal systems, some down to concerned parents, some to external colleagues required to respond to the need for multi-agency meetings. Some issues will become visible over time, as the implications of the new curriculum and the need for a school assessment system emerge. The latter could become an issue in comparison with another school. A case of “my child with SEN is worse than yours”.

Looking at some of these in isolation.

Teachers, in any education setting, have always had the requirement to ensure that they plan to meet the needs of the children in their class. However, the new SEN framework speaks in terms that may cause some concern. “Interventions should not be used as a replacement for poor quality teaching”; the room for manoeuvre, by SLT/SENCo/LA in consideration of SEN support within this statement, is huge. Equally, if it is the regular class practice for the children with SEN to work with a TA and the TA frequently plans and implements those plans, but a child makes/ or does not make progress, Performance Management of the teacher might depend on those outcomes. Who’s able to claim the progress or lack of it? Teachers will need to address any shortfall in their SEN knowledge urgently, as this will begin to form a part of a PM conversation.

There is an assumption that the majority of CYP with SEN will be in mainstream education settings and that a child with SEN but without an EHC (Education, Health and Care) plan must be educated in mainstream. These underlying assumptions will have significant bearing on school and class decision making.

IEPs have been a part of SEN practice for some time, although they are not mentioned in the draft framework. These have been well used in many cases, but equally they can be filed and shelved for the periods between reviews and targets reset by default. Class teacher record keeping will become a significant issue, particularly for vulnerable children. School Action and School Action plus categories are replaced by a single SEN category. With teachers being held more accountable, I can see a case for in-class individual case studies being developed, based on descriptions of what’s been done in class and the outcomes, to support the school SENCo in fine-tuning decisions about need. The next steps, articulated in a Personalised Action Plan (PAP-my words), will be for the class teacher to implement, with intention and outcomes reported to SENCo, parents and SLT/Governors on a regular basis.

Inevitably, with PM and an Ofsted focus on SEN outcomes, classroom observations will have a focus on the needs of identified specific groups and individuals.

The combination of a number of PAP style interventions, will build a picture that supports a referral to an external “expert”, eg an Ed Psych, which will, in turn result in further, fine-tuned PAPs.

Over time, evidence which can be presented for the replacement for a Statement, the Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), will be developed.

It may sound like the status quo. There is, professionally, more at stake for class teachers in the new framework, but potentially even more for a child with SEN, whose teacher is unable to spot and investigate needs and with the skills and knowledge to address them.

Parents will need to know the outline and details of the new system, so this will be an on-line statement of policy and practice, with potentially hard copy alternatives to allow easy access reference material. Parent contact with class teachers are likely to be at a more detailed level, replacing some conversations which might have been conducted by the SENCo.

Parents will also need to know the details of the Local Offer, the range of services available locally.

All school communication systems will need to be reviewed. Supported discussions with parents may become the norm, with commensurate cost implications.

With Personal Budgets available within the EHC plan, parents may well need significant support in decision making about how best to use this, especially if they choose to be budget holders. Internal Team Around the Child (TAC) meetings are likely to become more frequent, as information is brought together, shared within collegiate expertise and decisions made about future plans. These could be Class teacher, TA, SENCo and HT with parents, sometimes supported by external expertise.

Like Statements, EHCPs will depend on the quality of information that shows regular, sustained intervention by appropriate staff, the (lack of) impact and a descriptor of the continuing, serious needs of the child.

SEN and Levels

Where the National system of levels has seemingly been abandoned for most year groups, with the requirement for schools to have their own system, it is not inconceivable that within this particular area lies further room for manoeuvre for decision makers, who will have to decide how robust the internal assessment system is to back up the decisions, how effectively they have been applied and their impact.

There will be a question of whether it measures one child’s performance against peers effectively and whether it show that the need is significant, compared to their age group. This latter aspect, against National age group, is currently partly articulated by a child’s level in comparison with peers, showing a level of developmental delay. Below level 1, there are “P” levels, which fine tune pre-level decisions.  

Assessing Pupil Progress (APP) statements, or similar, have been a part of school assessment systems for some time. It might be assumed that they will disappear, along with levels, but the structure might just provide the vehicle for a fine-tuned internal assessment system, as it applies to children with SEN. Whether these statements are derived from yearness capabilities, is likely to be down to each school as it stands. There is, in my mind, a strong case for area moderation of systems, to ensure comparability.

The fine-tuned aspects of APP, although less helpful for whole class assessment, does provide a clarity to describing individual progression, especially for an early career teacher, who may be unsure of what to look for.

Behaviour as a category has been removed; “Behavioural difficulties do not necessarily mean that a child or young person (CYP) has a SEN and should not automatically lead to a pupil being registered as having SEN”.

This statement, in itself, signals an intention, where , unless it can be demonstrated that a child’s behaviour is a result of one of the SEN categories, just being “naughty” to some degree, does not count as SEN, so should not be passed to SENCo for remediation. A reminder of the four categories:-

  • Communication and Interaction
  • Cognition and Learning
  • Social, Mental and Emotional Health
  • Sensory and/or Physical needs.
So, unless the behaviour is a result of one of these, the school behaviour management systems need to be invoked effectively at all levels.

School behaviour policies need to be revisited/revised in the light of the new legislation.

In conclusion: - Considering the implications of the impending changes should be a priority. Not doing so could leave a school, or class teachers vulnerable to challenge by parents of children with SEN. Understandable systems, clearly articulated within policies, available to everyone connected with the school and enacted by every member of staff need to be developed.

0 Comments

SEN changes for 2014

11/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Every teacher is a teacher of individual needs, which often identify themselves as little concerns when a learner either exceeds or does not grasp what is being expected.

It has been intriguing me over the past few weeks as we’ve waited for the confirmed Code of Practice on SEND to be implemented from September 2014. There is an implication that the change will be managed over time, and, as far as the “sharp end” of SEND, where Children and Young People are in receipt of a current Statement of Special Educational Needs, or perhaps are already in some kind of special provision, that may be the case. I can see that over the anticipated three year period, the annual reviews embedded in the statements will enable them to be changed to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) as they are reviewed, with emphasis on those approaching transition to another institution.

At a recent talk by a Hampshire senior inspector for SEND, there was a suggestion that EHCPs will impact on between 1 and 2% of the school population. A large number of these will already be in the system, so should be ok, as long as they have families capable of keeping the system on it’s toes, or teachers able to act as an advocate in vulnerable cases.

That still leaves 98% of children in classrooms across the country. If, on the Government preferred scale of achievement, 85% of children are expected to leave Primary education with the equivalent of what was previously level 4b, it leaves 13% of children above the EHCP threshold, but less than the expected level. It is possible to speculate that they will have a range of individual, some special needs, within Communication and Interaction, Cognition and Learning or Social, Mental and Emotional Health. Sensory and/or Physical needs, I would suggest, are likely to have been picked up before formal education, so should already have the benefit of an EHCP/Statement. I would speculate further that the needs of a small number of those who achieve will occasionally be individualised, requiring specific interventions by adults.

Checklist of characteristics to look out for.

Picture
So, out of a class of 30, it’s possible to anticipate 6 children with learning needs of some kind, which, as cohorts are not equal, may vary from none to 15+. Each is an individual, requiring specific guidance, support and adaptation to enable them to keep up with their peers.

Keeping up with your peers is visible for three weeks of the year in the Tour de France, so is an apt analogy. The 150 best (depends on your choice) cyclists, working together in teams, seek to ensure that their leader, not necessarily the best of the bunch, has a chance to win the overall race after 3000 gruelling kilometres of racing. It is interesting watching the Peloton, or main pack, especially when hitting the worst of the mountains. Whereas on the flat, they are all seemingly capable of maintaining a reasonable place among the pack, but the hills and mountains drain the stamina, make muscles ache and provide such a challenge that even a winner of a stage can hit the wall and drop further behind.

The same can apply to learning. Going along on the flat is fine but learners need to encounter the hills, learn the techniques to keep going and then to develop the specialist skills needed to attempt the mountains. Children who encounter burn out are difficult to motivate to continue.

The 20% of learners who may have different degrees of individual needs have always existed in classrooms, and, despite the best efforts of every pre-school teacher, are likely still to enter the school system. Their needs need to be carefully interrogated through what I have called in another post, a Record of Actions, Discussions or Decisions, Interventions and Outcomes, or RADIO.

Identification, intervention, discussion, adaptation, feedback are all teacher skills, outlined in the teaching standards 6 and 5, thinking on your feet and adapting to needs. These derive from teacher expectation, standards 2 and 4, where, hopefully, planning embeds the lesson narrative, for different groups, to an extent where the teacher can spot those whose “progress” is somehow not as anticipated, therefore requiring a short chat. These interactions, if regular and progressively deeper and concerning, might be the beginning of a pattern, which if left, becomes a learning deficit, requiring greater intervention.

The mantra for September 2014, in the brave new world of SEND should be “Anticipate and expect, then Actions, Discussions or Decisions, Interventions and Outcomes” to ensure thatno childis allowed to slip.

It is worth remembering that a child cannot be deemed to have special educational needs if the teaching received is inadequate. This can apply to ineffective Teaching Assistant intervention also. SEND children need quality teacher time.

0 Comments
Forward>>

    Chris Chivers

    Long career in education, classroom and leadership; always a learner.
    University tutor and education consultant; Teaching and Learning, Inclusion and parent partnership.
    Francophile, gardener, sometime bodhran player.

    Archives

    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    September 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All
    Assessment
    Behaviour
    Differentiation
    English
    Experience
    History
    Home Learning
    Inclusive Thinking
    Maths
    Parents
    Science
    SEND
    Sing And Strum
    Teaching And Learning

    RSS Feed

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Picture
    Click to set custom HTM L
Proudly powered by Weebly