Teach Secondary Issue 14.8

Checks and balances MeenaWood looks at whether Ofsted’s recent focus on ‘inclusion’ will make a substantive difference to the learning and wellbeing of children with SEND… I f we don’t listen to the children our education system treats as ‘outliers’, causing them to ‘fail’ their exams at 16, how inclusive should we consider that system to be? ‘SEND’ pupils are disproportionately more likely than their peers to be persistently absent from classrooms, suspended or excluded for poor behaviour. At the same time, little if any analysis exists of why they miss school so often, or fail to gain a Level 4 GCSE, despite themhaving frequently received appropriate interventions, or in some cases, mandated EHCP support. Demotivated children Bizarrely, for a government that supposedly places so much stock in data, it seems staggeringly short-sighted for the DfE to not even ask pupils precisely why they don’t attend school, or aren’t ‘ready to learn’. Instead, there are just yet more ‘Ambassadors for Behaviour’ and ‘Attendance Hubs’ – palliative sticking plasters, at best. As a former HMI, schools adviser and headteacher, I would regularly interrogate school data for persistently absent children, and pose that question of ‘ Why? ’ to them directly. Some felt unsupported with conditions such as ADHD, or dyslexia. For others, it was down to a pace of learning that was too fast, or because ‘ They weren’t good at the subject ’ (those subjects usually being maths, English or science). Other reasons would include suspensions for uniform infractions, or disruptive behaviours because they were not helped in addressing existing gaps in their knowledge. Some felt that certain subjects (French, for instance) were simply irrelevant to them. I’ve previously spoken to SEND students struggling to learn by rote, and fed up of being compared to their non-SEND peers in terms of assessment outcomes. They felt like failures – especially those Y9s already predicted as attaining 3s in their eventual English and maths GCSEs. The problems they were having essentially hinged on what they were learning and how they were being assessed. Even children with an EHCP – who you assume would be ably supported – appeared to be not making the progress they were capable of. These demotivated children ‘knew’ they would fail their GCSEs. For them, the die had already been cast. Flexible accreditation It’s therefore interesting to read the key recommendations put forward by the Youth Shadow Panel – a youth-led initiative operating in parallel with the government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review. The Youth Shadow Panel’s report (see shadowpanel.uk ) describes the GCSE as a ‘closed-book’ exam that may contribute to “ Disabled and neurodiverse students becoming unable to fulfil their academic potential. ” That advice has been echoed by the Education Select Committee. Its recently published ‘Solving the SEND Crisis’ report recommended that “ The curriculummust be flexible, relevant and reflect the representation of young people with SEND; and the government must ensure the curriculum itself and the assessment of it reflect and accommodate their needs. ” (see tinyurl.com/ts148-IN1 ) Adopting flexible accreditation in schools would create a more equitable system. In place of a normative, one-size-fits-all assessment, there could be a range of motivational opportunities, including project-based and continuous assessment, such as in the International Baccalaureate. Ongoing progress could be measured against a framework of skills and knowledge-based competencies – something that’s commonplace inmany other countries. Skills-based accreditation (such as ASDAN and ESB Oracy qualifications) are effective at recording success milestones, and have been shown to work successfully for all children, but are currently only used at a school leadership’s discretion. The end goal The mandated EHCP could be used more wisely. Scheduled staff planning time could be earmarked for teachers, TAs and core subject teachers, so that SEND students in. say, KS3 can be taught in smaller groups. Children with identified needs could even start to receive elements of the support they require without delay, while waiting for EHCPs to be awarded – currently a major weakness under the present legal framework. Instead of working in silos, the government’s Inclusion Task Force, Attendance and Behaviour Ambassadors could collaborate on devising better inclusive education strategies. Why not task these individuals with setting up focus groups of disengaged children, and questioning them on how school could better meet their needs? The end goal must be to engage all students in their learning, so that they actually enjoy school. This might involve looking at current behaviour and attendance approaches, as well as uniform guidelines. Shifting to a more adaptive “Inspectors and schools alike must developacommon understandingof inclusion” 68 teachwire.net/secondary