SEN0757
Written evidence submitted by Chartered College of Teaching
Who we are
The Chartered College of Teaching is the professional body for teachers. We are working to empower a knowledgeable and respected teaching profession through membership and accreditation. We are dedicated to bridging the gap between practice and research and equipping teachers with the knowledge and confidence to make the best decisions for their pupils.
We are supporting the profession to shape the future of teaching. In these challenging times, it is more important than ever that teachers are celebrated for their expertise and professionalism and that teachers have the opportunity to have their voice heard through consultations, surveys and roundtables. The Chartered College of Teaching is an unequivocally positive voice for teaching, raising the status of the profession to benefit teachers, their students and the whole of society.
Reason for submitting evidence
As the professional body for teachers, we sit at the intersection of research, policy and practice and consider it our responsibility to share the voices of practitioners with policymakers. As part of this work, we are submitting evidence collected as part of roundtables and focus groups with Fellows and members of the Chartered College of Teaching.
The main messages arising from our focus group discussions are the need for:
● Flexibility to allow for adaptation to the curriculum and assessment systems, so students’ needs can be met
● A stronger focus on inclusion within the accountability system, so it becomes a priority for all settings
● Closer collaboration between specialist and mainstream settings around student support and initial and continuous teacher training and adequate funding to support this work
● The recognition of specialist educators’ expertise and commitment
● Technology can help to personalise learning and address students’ needs but it cannot resolve the wider SEND crisis
● The need for parity of funding upwards between specialist and mainstream schools, so mainstream schools can access the same support for their students and an end to the ‘postcode’ lottery
What does inclusivity mean and look like in mainstream settings?
Focus group participants argued that inclusivity should be at the heart of all settings, ‘visible through language, policy and practice’ and drive school priorities but that its concrete implementation will look different, depending on each setting’s cohort and students’ needs. In order to facilitate this work, settings need to understand their cohort and their needs and make it a priority to cater to them. However, this work is often hampered by rigid curriculum requirements, limited approaches to assessment that focus solely on students’ academic achievements, requiring advanced literacy skills, and an accountability system that does not prioritise inclusion. While schools generally recognise their responsibility towards students with SEND and try their best to create an inclusive environment, external accountability measures currently rarely recognise or value these efforts and should not reward those schools that are not prioritising inclusion. Given the direct influence the accountability system currently has on schools’ priorities, inclusion needs to be made a priority within these systems if real change is to be achieved on a large scale.
Changes needed to teacher training
Focus group participants argued that teacher training needs to place more emphasis on inclusion, the needs of students with SEND and how best to support them. The option of compulsory placements in special schools as part of mainstream teacher education was floated as a possible approach to raising future teachers’ awareness. A closer collaboration between mainstream and special settings during initial and continuous training would also allow for staff members in each setting to learn from each other. Such close collaborations are also relevant in relation to curriculum delivery and discussed further below. SEND specialists should be included as part of teacher training, so future teachers can develop a better understanding of how differently students with even the same diagnosis can present in practice, how adaptive teaching can support and what teachers’ responsibilities are in line with their code of practice. Such efforts already exist in places but usually rely on the goodwill of SEND specialists. If these initiatives are to be scaled up, more funding needs to be made available.
Changes needed to the curriculum in mainstream schools to enable SEND children to fulfil their potential
Some of the following evidence was previously submitted as part of our response to the Curriculum review but we think it is important to reiterate the main points here given the specific focus of this call for evidence.
It becomes evident from our focus group discussions that personalisation and flexibility are key to providing the right support for all students, including those with SEND but that the current curriculum, assessment and accountability systems generally do not allow for the necessary levels of adaptivity.
Flexibility in the curriculum and adaptive teaching are key to better support students with SEND. Participants from independent schools and MATs shared how being able to tailor the programme to student needs is a real strength. This allows for vocational programmes, projects etc.and a much more child/ young person focussed approach, building engagement and learning. State specialist settings should also be allowed not to follow the National Curriculum but adapt their provision to their students’ needs. Although it was also noted that too personalised a curriculum can put students at a disadvantage once they enter the world of work and have to compete with others who have followed the mainstream system and it can limit their choices and therefore their pathways beyond school. Teachers are best placed to judge what works best for their students and contexts and should be given the freedom to adapt the curriculum accordingly.
Adaptive assessment is key for students with SEND. A shift in mindset is needed as to what adaptive teaching looks like - quality of teaching is at the heart. Adaptive teaching has to align with adaptive assessment in order to be neuro-inclusive. More creativity is needed in how students’ learning is assessed and how students with SEND access exams. AI could play a big role in more inclusive, adaptive assessment methods and its role should be considered for students with SEND and beyond. BTEC Level 2 qualification can serve as an example as you can write up coursework or do it as a podcast. Having more cross-curricular assessment could also be a way forward, so is a stronger focus on spoken assessments. Use of computers within assessment can be helpful for those with test anxiety as it feels less pressured and digital feedback as well as being able to retake tests can be hugely beneficial. Growing online platforms allow for more bespoke learning and retaking and thus less feeling of failure.
Separating students with SEND from others during learning and exams (e.g. settings, isolated learning units, separate rooms during exams) should be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure it is really the right approach for a given student as often it is not.
It should be easier to move between specialist settings and mainstream. If a child is incredibly gifted in arts, for example, they should be able to participate in mainstream arts but according to focus group participants, this has become increasingly difficult due to the impact of league tables. Participants also highlighted the importance of mixing with mainstream students for students with SEND to facilitate their socio-emotional development.
Recognition of ‘spiky learning’ and allowance for this in expectations for SEND and beyond is needed. Learning is not linear and can include fast as well as slow, long-term progress and sometimes even short-term regression before progression. Sometimes, children can develop in some but not other areas (e.g. excelling academically but not socio-emotionally - there currently is no adequate way of capturing such profiles). This needs to be recognised in order to accurately assess students’ learning.
Curriculum progression should be stage not age focussed to support individual journeys and EHCP targets should be recognised as part of the curriculum outcomes and not outside of the curriculum.
More flexibility is needed in terms of what counts as a ‘broad and balanced’ curriculum and is included in accountability measures so that all students’ needs and interests can be met. This should include a wider range of qualifications as part of accountability measures.
While school attendance is paramount for achievements, it needs to be recognised that some students are simply not able to attend school (regularly) due to their mental health. Instead of punishing these students (and their parents), better support needs to be put in place for them, so they can ideally ultimately return to school.
The whole education and school community should develop a better understanding of the needs of students with SEND and move away from a ‘charity mindset’ for students with disabilities. Introducing diversity advocates and increasing diversity among staff are important steps towards achieving this goal.
The role of technology in supporting students with SEND
Focus group participants agreed that technology can go a long way to support students with SEND but it can not resolve the SEND crisis. The following examples show how schools have been using technology successfully to support their students but they need to be embedded in a wider support system and cannot replace it.
Some schools are currently using EdTech to design pathways for all students. They have 1:1 devices and multiple models to choose to engage with. This has given students agency and enthusiasm/buy-in to the lessons.
EdTech is also being used to support access to students who are not able to be on-site. This includes using live cams, but also generative AI to develop work to set for those at home. This has helped to narrow the gap between those who learn onsite and those who have to learn from home.
Timesaving applications can support marking the work of a whole class and looking for trends and questions. The use does still need teacher quality assurance however and training is required to use it successfully. It is not an ‘instant fix to workload’ and works best with whole class marking and not personal feedback.
EdTech allows for a wider variety of approaches to the recording of knowledge, including voice or video recordings, making it easier for students to capture what they know.
The use of EdTech is removing the public divide in those who do and do not understand an element. This can help students' motivation and personal development, whilst still enabling the teacher to know who and what individuals know. EdTech was described as ‘providing dignity for all’.
Schools are using EdTech to provide assessments, for example ‘learning by questions’. This enables the teacher to know where the support is needed and allows for directed intervention and quality first teaching.
Teachers are using AI to provide differentiated tasks around the same format. This does reduce workload but requires additional training.
Overall, these examples highlight that technological innovation can support students with SEND and many schools are utilising EdTech for this purpose but specialist training is needed to ensure that technology is used to its full potential.
What actions or reforms are needed to achieve financial stability and sustainability, both in the short and longer term, across the SEND system?
Roundtable participants raised the need for parity of funding. Currently, the amount of funding available for a child depends on the setting they are enrolled in. Parity is needed to ensure students can access the same support, no matter the setting they are enrolled in. Furthermore, the current ‘postcode lottery’ was discussed at length with some schools sharing wait-times of up to two years for Educational Psychologist assessments, which impacts the support and funding that is available for student support, including support staff and training. In some local authorities, schools were faced with needing to submit the same applications multiple times or hand-delivering them as they got lost in the system, again delaying the support that was available for students. Developing a streamlined system that can pull in information from across services, so it is stored centrally and easily shared across services could help speed up the application process.
The following examples help to illustrate some of the challenges schools are up against. One school reported that in their LA 97 children asked for specialist provision but the children instead were put into the mainstream without additional funding due to a lack of places. A further school reported that they were paying for alternative provision for a child three days per week but that LA told them to exclude the child. This highlights that in some local authorities, and certainly not everywhere, school leaders and SENCos feel like they are working against instead of with the system, leading to frustration among staff and suboptimal provision for students. Time and funding for closer cross-service collaboration is much-needed if provision is to be improved. One focus group participant summed it up as being ‘asked to do the impossible and then told they are failing’.
Concrete ways forward include:
● Parity of funding upwards between mainstream and specialist schools, so mainstream schools can access the same support for students as specialist schools
● More funding per EHCP, so schools can actually meet children’s (increasingly complex) needs
● Better pay for SEND specialist staff to recognise their expertise and their increasingly challenging roles
● Making budget predictions based on actual student numbers and not historical predictions
● Develop a streamlined, centralised IT system that allows to access and share information across services more easily and efficiently
The resounding message throughout our focus groups and roundtables was that of leaders’, teachers’, teaching assistants’ and SENCo’s unwavering commitment to their students. They are going above and beyond to fight for their students but their commitment is rarely recognised and not adequately remunerated. On the contrary, they sometimes even face hostility from parents who feel that their children’s needs are being neglected. This is despite school staff trying to put the right provision in place for students but encountering barriers within the wider system. The current system is very much relying on school staff fighting for their students with what feels like decreasing support from and collaboration with other services. This leads to exhaustion and low staff retention. The often emotional accounts of what in many cases are dire situations illustrate that the system is hanging by a thin thread and if teachers and leaders do not quickly receive the support they need to meet their students’ needs, it is only a matter of (a very short) time before it finally crumbles.
January 2025