Teach Secondary 14.4

The road to INCLUSION AI may help us realise the long-held dream of truly inclusive and effective education for all pupils – but policymakers will need to have a few words with Ofsted first, says MeenaWood ... A mong some of the profession’s most knowledgeable, distinguished voices, there’s beenmuch talk of AI in education and Ofsted’s report cards – and also of the need for an inclusive curriculum specifically designed for neurodivergent learners. It seems, however, that in England, at least, policymakers haven’t grasped an obvious detail that’s staring them in the face: namely, how can we develop an inclusive curriculumwithout first giving sufficient thought to howwe value and assess learners’ outcomes? Destined to fail The very process of normative assessment has always meant that children and young people end up being compared to their peers – thus frequently leaving behind those students who are among the most vulnerable, those who happen to be neurodivergent and others unable to access the curriculum, owing to a range of literacy and language needs. The tragic truth of it is that this grouping will always be destined to fail, year on year, constituting the one third who presently don’t attain GCSEs in English and maths. Earlier this year, however, Ofsted announced that during inspections, “ Inspectors will look at how well providers support vulnerable and disadvantaged children and learners, including those with SEND, making sure these children are always at the centre of inspection. ” (see tiny.cc/ts144-S1) . This rhetoric is laudable, and in fairness to Ofsted, disadvantaged children and students with SEND have consistently been a focus for the regulator, in one way or another, in every iteration of the education inspection framework since 2010. 15 years on, Ofsted has now created a separate judgement for ‘inclusion’ – but is simultaneously still inspecting the same old curriculummodel and assessment processes that it was before. Smoke andmirrors At this point, we should note the strident critiques voiced from across the teaching sector and portions of the media regarding Ofsted’s much-vaunted ‘report cards’, and how inspectors will henceforth be issuing five separate gradings across 11 judgements. Up to now, however, this has been a largely tangential ‘smoke and mirrors’ debate, buoyed by anyone with a vested interest in perpetuating (or indeed opposing) the ‘league table’ approach to judging schools. The real problem actually persists with those children who are disenfranchised by the mainstream curriculum – leaving school in droves, being given fixed term exclusions, and who are simply unable to access the curriculum. Without relevant accreditation, they can’t achieve the incremental steps needed to progress to the next stage of their learning journeys. Einstein’s purported observation that ‘ Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results ’ neatly sums up Ofsted’s ‘report card’ and inclusion judgement plans. If there’s no change in what children actually learn and how they’re actually being assessed – and still no synergy between DfE and Ofsted on assessment that might better reflect learners’ starting points – then a third of students will just continue to fail. The view fromabroad For simpler, and more pragmatic ways of evaluating schools, we can turn to other countries. Across education systems as disparate as those inWales, Germany, Singapore and Taiwan, we see the presentation of narratives that highlight schools’ differing contexts and learner profiles, alongside attempts at identifying what facilitates certain behaviours and attitudes towards learning. To this, we could then add the effects of pastoral care, combined with the impact of the curriculum, teaching and learning and assessment on outcomes for all pupil groups, including students from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEND. As discussed inmy contribution to the recently published book Beyond 48 teachwire.net/secondary