SCN0126

Written evidence from Anonymous 4

 

  1. I currently work as an SEND teacher/trainer/assessor for a local authority, working across the primary and secondary phase. I also teach on the NASENCO Award and work with SENCOs across the local authority. I have recently completed my Masters in Inclusive Education and Special Educational Needs, focusing on [redacted]. The following comments are based on my recent experiences, observations and research.

Assessment of and support for children and young people with SEND

  1. Lack of funding, time and resources are restricting the accurate and timely assessment for children and young people with SEND. This directly impacts on the level of targeted support offered to children and young people with SEND.
  2. Class teachers across the primary and secondary sector are having to create their own methods of recording progress (as NC levels no longer exist) and children/young people with SEND are more than often given vague data such as ‘not meeting age related expectations’, ‘working below’, ‘not on target’….with very little data to specify where they are currently working at and next steps for improvement.
  3. Too many children/young people with SEND are grouped together into generalised catch up intervention groups with little understanding/knowledge of individual learning needs.
  4. TAs are still given more weight than OUTCOMES.
  5. General in-class TA support still seems to be the most common way of supporting children and young people with SEND (despite the research by Webster et al to note this is not as effective as delivering well researched,  targeted interventions to the right children).
  6. TAs are reducing in number and class teachers are struggling to manage the wide range of often complex needs in their classroom despite their attempts to offer quality first teaching.
  7. SENCOs are given insufficient time to observe/assess/support and advise class teachers.
  8. The best Assess, Plan, Do, Review paperwork evidence is written by SENCOs as class teachers have had little training and are generally not following this cycle in enough depth or detail.
  9. Curriculums (particularly in secondary) are reduced so that all young people are expected to do a full time-table of academic subjects with little flexibility. I am told this is directly linked with the Progress 8 measure.
  10. Consequently, I feel like the majority of children and young people I work with are over whelmed with curriculum content and pace and generally not a high priority for school leaders. When I have fleeting moments to meet with class teachers they feel like they’re failing these children but have limited capacity (time/resources) to do anything about it.

The level and distribution of funding for SEND provision

  1. As very little of the SEND funding is ring fenced and school budgets appear to be tighter than ever, there seems to have been significant cuts to SEND funding. Fewer TAs have been noted in most schools I work in and there are less personalised resources available.
  2. Schools still seem to see the main source of SEND funding is to be spent on additional adults (TAs) rather than assistive technology (which still feels quite sparse in many schools).
  3. Any funding that is available seems to be prioritised on those with SEMH difficulties as they’re needs are generally more visible. For those with Cognition and Learning difficulties (the cohort I work with) there is a sense of them ‘making do’ and ‘having a go’ at what everyone else is doing.
  4. It also seems (mainly in secondary) that without the ‘protection’ of an EHC plan, there is very little resourcing ‘in addition to or different from’ for those placed at SEN Support.
  5. SENCOs are having to try and co-ordinate provision for more children and young people with complex needs in mainstream schools with less funding available. This is causing great tension for schools and LAs as there are increasing numbers of children with SEND who are risk of exclusion.

Additional Information

  1. My dissertation for my Masters (completed November 2017) [redacted]. I interviewed three SENCOs (one from Early Years, Primary and Secondary), who were completing the NASENCO Award at the time and used this data to inform my research. I was able to identify key areas that appeared to enable and constrain the SENCO role, including working in Senior Leadership, the mind set of others (head teachers, teachers, teaching assistants) and change management. Conclusions suggest that whilst the status of SENCOs may have improved, their effectiveness as change agents is restricted due to key stakeholders not prioritising SEND. Practitioners have little time to reflect on and embed SEND policy reforms due to the pace of educational change and the on-going  tension of the Inclusion versus Standards Agenda continues. A further finding from this study is how children even at pre-school age are experiencing segregation, which questions inclusion from the start of the education system.  Lack of time to do the role properly continues to be a barrier, which replicates many previous studies, despite the CoP, 2015 clearly stating this should not be the case.

 

June 2018