1. My Background

1.1 I taught in a First School in Bradford (1976-1978) before training and working as an educational psychologist in Walsall (1979-2004). I lectured in Educational Psychology at the University of Warwick (2004-2017) and conducted research on managing behaviour and applying core psychological principles of teaching and learning to the classroom. After leaving Warwick I created the research based consultancy, Optima Psychology, which has continued to do research and work with schools and local authorities on raising attainments and preventing difficulties. My work and research has been published in eight books and over 50 articles in refereed journals (see references).

2. Rationale

2.1 My contribution to this call for evidence is based on examining the overall context in which children are identified as SEND and how they are taught. I have addressed the current crisis and the increasing number of pupils having SEND, in relation to the perceived causes of their difficulties and the labels

applied to explain their failure to behave or learn as expected. This involves looking at: (i) the concept of special education; (ii) school culture and the way behaviour is managed and (iii) the teaching and learning environment.

2.2 The increasing number of pupils experiencing difficulties for whom a diagnostic label is sought to define their condition is making the SEND system unmanageable. It has a number of major consequences:

There are too many pupils requiring assessments for EHCPs. The system cannot cope with the demand which is leading to ever increasing waiting lists. Providing the required funding to meet the demand for both assessments and EHCPs would be prohibitive, even if every child could be assessed within the specified time scale.
There are potentially too many false positives, namely pupils receiving a diagnosis but not necessarily those with the greatest need. These are pupils who could, under the right conditions, have their needs met in their current schools with existing resources. Schools and families are clearly finding it difficult to meet children’s various needs and are therefore seeking a diagnosis that defines the nature of their difficulties rather than implementing appropriate interventions, within a mainstream setting, that address pupils’ difficulties without requiring additional resources.
Thus, the consequence of there being too many false positives is that the limited additional resources that are available do not always go to the pupils with the greatest need who do require additional resources that would be available through an EHCP.
There is an assumption that a diagnosis (for example ADHD, autism, dyslexia) will resolve pupils’ perceived difficulties. However, it is well documented that a diagnosis does not automatically lead to an appropriate intervention. They can vary enormously and do not remove the need for an assessment of children’s needs that are informed by a clear understanding of the contexts in which their learning occurs.
Generally, where SEND is concerned, the education system is increasingly reactive and is failing to put in place appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of learning and behaviour difficulties. There was a time in the 1980s when educational psychologists (EPs) worked alongside schools to develop strategies to prevent difficulties. However, after the introduction of the 1981 Education Act there was a shift in practice away from prevention to meeting the growing need for individual assessments. The DfE’s recent report on EP services indicated that EPs devote little time to prevention. It described what was termed a ‘vicious circle’ where EPs were required to provide EHCPs which reduced the time for preventive work and advising on whole school approaches to teaching and learning.

2.3 My response to the call for evidence focuses on preventing diagnoses through developing appropriate positive, constructive and demonstrably effective whole school policies and methodologies on managing behaviour, teaching and learning. At the moment the right children are not getting the help that they need through the tendency to pathologise pupils’ perceptions and responses to everyday life events. Matilda Gosling, in her recently published book (‘Teenagers’) advises:

‘talking about mental health lightly, encouraging our teenagers to see their feelings as normal and changeable rather than as fixed parts of their identity.’

3. SEND: Expectations and Labels

3.1 Expectations

3.1.1 Following the publication of the Warnock Report (DES, 1978) a widely held belief has been that up to one in five children might have a difficulty in learning at some time during their school careers. The impact of this belief

has sustained teacher expectations for children failing to learn on a basis that might be wholly unjustified over the last 45 years.

3.1.2 The Warnock Committee wished to estimate the incidence of special needs and after examining the available evidence declared that 'the planning of services for children and young people should be based on the assumption that about one in six children at any time, and up to one in five children at some time during their school career will require some form of special educational provision' (p 41). The evidence on which these estimates were based however, drew on the use of IQ data to identify children experiencing difficulties. An IQ of 70 was recognised as the cut-off for determining whether children had difficulties, that warranted a placement in a special school. It was assumed that pupils with an IQ below 70 were somehow qualitatively different from those with an IQ above 70 and would therefore benefit from alternative provision.

3.1.3 However, the origins of this figure tell a different story. It is derived from the work of Cyril Burt, England’s first EP, who wished to employ an objective measure for determining placement in the available special schools. The London County Council had places for approximately 1½% of the school population. Burt found that the places could be fulfilled by using an IQ of 69.4. This was rounded up to 70, a figure that has had such a widespread influence on the lives of many children, but it must be remembered, was originally adopted on purely pragmatic grounds, to fill the number of available places in London schools.

3.1.4 The implications of expecting that one in five children are going to experience difficulties is very different from thinking that in any class, teachers will have difficulties in meeting the needs of approximately 20% of their pupils. The former leads us to look at the learning characteristics of children, the latter to an assessment of the learning environment, the quality of teaching and the appropriateness of existing provision. Believing that up to one in five children may experience difficulties, can be seen as legitimising children's failure to learn.

3.2 Labels

3.2.1 Labelling has always been a part of the special needs system. A look at educational legislation from the 1880 onwards indicates that terms such as idiot, imbecile, idiot, severely subnormal, educational subnormal (mild or severe) and special education needs (SEN), were all enshrined in government legislation. Each label had a life history of between approximately 25-30 years with SEN being replaced in 2014 with SEND. We might therefore, reasonably expect SEND to be replaced between 2039 and 2044. What the history of labelling indicates is that we need to have a term to describe those pupils whom we perceive as different and we change labels when past terms become less useful and possibly prejudicial.

3.2.2 This section raises two questions about SEND and how to move forward. The first is how do we avoid limiting what children might achieve in the future through our beliefs about the nature of children’s learning. A related second question is whether it is possible to meet children’s needs without the use of labels which have been a fundamental part of the narrative about SEND. This would represent a major departure from the past where labels have often stigmatised, pathologised and limited our expectations for what children can achieve?

4. School Culture and Managing Pupil’s Behaviour

4.1 The school culture is reflected in how pupils’ behaviour is managed which impacts on their attitude to school, their emotional well-being and their mental health. Pupils arrive at school from a variety of home environments but it should not be assumed that how they behave at home is how they will behave at school. Of course it may do but this could be the consequence of: (i) the school culture; (ii) how their behaviour is managed and (iii) its similarities with what they experience at home and the feelings that it engenders.

4.2 In February 2024 the DfE published: ‘Behaviour in Schools: Advice for Headteachers and School Staff.’ It explains that in creating a culture schools should be clear about which behaviours are permitted and prohibited. This will then be reflected on how behaviour is managed through creating an environment ‘where positive behaviours are more likely by proactively supporting pupils to behave appropriately’ (p5).

4.3 I have selected one example of the many possible to illustrate the obstacles schools’ face in applying the above principles to practice namely, ‘the column inches in the DfE advice devoted to responding to good behaviour compared to misbehaviour.’ Just one paragraph is devoted to responding to good behaviour whereas, in contrast there are 14 paragraphs devoted to misbehaviour. Similarly The Independent Review of Behaviour in Schools, ‘Creating a Culture: How School Leaders Can Optimise Behaviour,’ refers to sanctions, not only ahead of, but also more frequently, than the references to

rewards. Reinforcement is mentioned once in relation to working with pupils with specific needs rather than being an integral part of a whole school policy. This is despite the fact that it is far more important theoretically and practically that teachers understand the role of reinforcement in creating a positive culture and managing behaviour than rewards.

4.4 One of the case studies quoted in Creating a Culture, as an example of a good practice, is the Michaela Academy, where the headteacher is frequently described as the ‘strictest head in the country.’ Their behaviour, policy, published in September 2024, focuses exclusively on the consequences of poor behaviour and does not mention consequences for desired behaviour.

4.5 The paradox is that the extent to which Michaela is successful, and is a model for other schools to replicate, may be less to do with the headteacher being strict and more to do with:

everyone (pupils, teachers and parents) being clear about how pupils are expected to behave;
pupils are aware of the consequences of their behaviour, both positive and negative;
sanctions and rewards are applied consistently by all teachers;
staff model expected behaviour;
the headteacher supports staff.
parents are fortunate that their children attend Michaela and so are supportive of its policies.

In other words there is considerable predictability and consistency in all aspects of school life. This being the case it is likely the school would be equally successful if it had a greater focus on reinforcement and rewards rather than sanctions and punishment.

4.6 Tom Bennett has been an independent advisor to the DfE, leads the Behaviour Hubs programme, wrote the Independent Review of Behaviour in Schools, founded researchEd and is the author of Running the Room (a best-selling book on managing behaviour). It is based, in part on the theories of B.F. Skinner (the father of behaviourism) and is described as a practical, evidence-informed, teacher’s guide to behaviour. Bennett through his advisory position within the DfE and his publications,

can therefore, be seen to have been highly influential in determining how schools are now encouraged to manage behaviour.

4.7 Skinner in a BBC Radio 4 interview stated:

I think I can claim to have done more than anyone I can think of at the present time in exploring alternatives to punishment, ways of getting people to learn, behave well, treat each other well, which do not require punishment.

So whereas Skinner argued that behaviour could be managed through positive consequences designed to promote desired classroom behaviour, Bennett appears to imply the opposite. In Running the Room the chapter on sanctions runs to 24 pages and appears before the chapter on rewards which is only 10 pages in length.

4.8 Teachers consistently reading more about sanctions than rewards in DfE documents and influential texts, and seeing sections on sanctions appearing before rewards, conveys a clear message that the former are more influential than the latter in managing behaviour.

4.9 One of the problems with SEND is discussing managing children’s behaviour without reference to the curriculum or the nature of pupils learning experiences or children’s appreciation of the rationale or purpose of what they are being taught. In running the room Bennett lists ten reasons why students misbehave which include:

we ask them to do what they might not be inclined to do;
we judge them;
they’re not successful;
they think they aren’t supposed to like school, and nobody counteracts this;
they are happier misbehaving than behaving.

4.10 They all attribute a negative cause to children’s misbehaviour but without reference to what or how they are being taught. However, personal experience from working with ‘disruptive’ pupils of all ages suggests

that incidence of unwanted behaviour is reduced significantly simply by ensuring that pupils are on the right task. For example, suggesting that pupils misbehave because they are not successful could more helpfully be reconstrued as pupils not being taught appropriate tasks for their skill levels and so will not be in a position to experience success. Neville Bennett and colleagues in a 1984 study on the quality of pupils’ learning experiences, found that over half the tasks that pupils were given were not appropriate, with higher attainers on tasks that were too easy 41% of the time whereas lower attainers were on task that were too hard 44% of the time.

4.11 As things stand the focus on sanctions and punishment and lack of awareness of how to develop whole school policies to managing behaviour that focus on teaching and reinforcing expected behaviour, the behavioural difficulties and mental health problems being experienced by increasing numbers of pupils will not end.

4.12 Finally, the publicly available guidance to school does not explain the critical final step in managing behaviour preventively. How do the currently recommended approaches enable pupils to take responsibility for their own behaviour?

5. Teaching and Learning

5.1 My response to the SEND crisis is based on the assumption that a valid assessment of pupils’ learning must include a detailed understanding of what and how they have been taught. It cannot be assumed that low attainments are evidence that pupils have a difficulty in learning. Pupils arrive in school with very different starting points which will have a bearing on their future progress. Reading is the main curriculum area where pupils are identified as having difficulties but it cannot be assumed that the way reading is currently being taught is not without problems, despite the claims that standards are rising and that England achieved its highest ever position in PIRLS 2021.

5.2 Examining the content of systematic, synthetic phonics (SSP) programmes that are now being used to teach reading suggests that they contain design flaws that explain why pupils may fail to progress as intended. For example, progression through SSP programmes is based on pupils being presented with a specific number of grapheme-phoneme-correspondences (GPC) per week so that the programme can be completed before pupils take the Phonic Screening Check. The consequence is that pupils may move from task to the next before it has been mastered, which over time will cause considerable problems for them. There are numerous other features of SSP programmes that will cause comparable problems for pupils that may lead them to requiring an EHCP assessment.

5.3 The Three Tier Model

5.3.1 The SEND system is based on a three tier model of teaching and learning that has rarely been questioned and implies that lower achieving pupils can only have their needs met in small groups or on a 1:1 basis. It is assumed that having failed to make progress through whole class (Tier 1) and small group (Tier 2) teaching, changing the size of the teaching group (Tier 3) will be critical in improving pupils’ learning. However, there is no evidence that 1:1 teaching will be any more effective than what went before if the design flaws in the Tier 1 and 2 interventions are not addressed. Typically Tier 3 teaching is more of the same but on a 1:1 basis.

5.3.2 The three tier model assumes that it is possible to identify a suitable cut-off to distinguish those that require Tier 2 or 3 interventions from those that do not. I received a grant from Essex LA, when working at the University of Warwick, to pilot a whole class, differentiated programme to teach reading that would prevent the occurrence of reading difficulties. Our published data demonstrated that the incidence of difficulties was reduced from the typical 20-25% to 3% or less. The lowest attainers in the experimental groups, who were taught on a whole class basis, significantly out-performed comparable pupils taught on a 1:1 basis. Furthermore, the attainments of all pupils improved with approximately 80% reading at an age appropriate level or above instead of the usual 50%. When the methods used were applied more widely across Essex in 36 schools, by the end of Year 2, 81% of pupils read at an age appropriate with the incidence of difficulties being reduced to 4.00%. Most significantly, it would have been almost impossible to identify a cut-off point to distinguish between the lower 4.1% and their peers.

5.4 Screening

5.4.1 Within the three tier system it takes some time to identify those pupils that require Tier 3 interventions. One response has been to suggest that pupils should be screened at an early stage in their school careers to identify students who may be at risk of experiencing later difficulties. It is assumed that intervening early will prevent future problems developing. There are a number of issues in validating any screening procedure.

5.4.2 The first is that in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of a screening instrument, a period of time has to elapse to determine whether those identified subsequently experience difficulties but equally, those that are not identified do not experience difficulties. The second issue is that although certain measure may predict later difficulties, for example working memory, research shows that attempting to improve working memory would not transfer to improvements in pupils’ reading or maths. A third issue therefore, is that once identified, any early screening procedure has to lead to an intervention that is proven to prevent difficulties emerging.

5.4.3 In 2016, I reported a study with colleagues where 267 pupils children on school entry completed a wide battery of tasks associated with dyslexia. Their reading was tested two, three and four years later and a number of poor readers were identified. However, the results indicated that the causes of poor reading are multiple, interacting and

probabilistic, rather than deterministic. In other words there was no single measure that predicted who would, and who would not, experience difficulties in learning to read.

5.5 The Instructional Paradox, Response to Intervention (RtI) and Assessment-Through-Teaching (ATT)

5.5.1 The Instructional Paradox states: ‘we can only establish whether students genuinely have a learning difficulty when their teaching is based on the assumption that they do not.’ To do otherwise, and assume that some pupils experience difficulties in learning, raises the possibility that their low attainments reflect teacher expectations. So it can only be concluded that pupils have a difficulty in learning when they fail to progress as intended when their progress is monitored over time.

5.5.2 This can be achieved in one of two ways. The better know is RtI where pupils are taught through a well-researched intervention. Within the RTI literature a failure to learn indicates that pupils’ have a learning difficulty, rather than the starting point for a process of refining and amending the intervention.

5.5.3 Within ATT it is assumed that pupils will learn if what and how they are taught is

appropriate. A failure to progress is attributed to the teaching programme which then needs to be amended. Only when it is thought the intervention cannot be improved would it be concluded that pupils have a difficulty in learning.

6. Summary

6.1 This analysis of the SEND crisis has addressed how pupil outcomes can be improved through developing preventive, whole school policies, that are built on creating a positive school culture in which to manage their behaviour and refine the curriculum, to ensure that it facilitates their learning and is not the cause of their difficulties.

6.2 The analysis is inclusive in nature and encourages all those working within the education system to examine their

expectations regarding children’s learning and potentially revise their beliefs about the most effective ways of meeting pupils’ needs.

6.3 It is suggested that significant changes need to take place in the guidance schools receive on managing behaviour and the curricula currently being used to teaching literacy and maths.

6.4 There is a need for extensive training for

January 2025
local authority and educational trust managers, teachers, teaching assistants and educational psychologists.

6.5 Creating a school culture along the lines summarised will not only impact positively on children’s behaviour and learning but also their perceptions of themselves as learners, their mental health and their life opportunities.