Teach Secondary Issue 14.8

curriculumwould facilitate learning based on need and pace, rather than Key Stage or age, and afford more opportunities for every child to fulfil their potential. And while we’re at it – mandatory training for TAs and teachers on how to adapt their teaching for students with SEND is a core feature of ITT within the Singapore education system. Why not replicate that here? Stereotypes and vagueness So how exactly will Ofsted evaluate ‘inclusion’? The definitions of ‘SEND’ and ‘barriers’ in its latest Education Inspection Framework and accompanying guidance (see tinyurl.com/ts148-IN2) seem noticeably vague. As a former HMI National Lead for Equalities, I find that concerning. Does ‘SEND’ include only those students with identified needs, those receiving support or intervention, or those withmandated EHCPs? Will inspectors have received sufficient training in seeking out unidentified needs during observations? Because it’s these kinds of analyses that should form the core of a genuinely inclusive inspection practice. It would seem that Ofsted has learnt few lessons from its previous foci on other pupil groups. Prior inspector training on ‘race equality’, for example, was implemented with specific guidance, exemplars of good report writing and school case studies of best practice. The training materials were based on inspection reports and ‘good practice’ thematic surveys from across the pre- and post-16 sectors, emphasising the need for relevant, contextual language over bland report writing, stereotypes and vagueness. That would mean replacing a statement like, “ All pupils, including those with learning difficulties and disabilities, or fromminority ethnic backgrounds make progress at similar rates, ” with the following: “ Effective language support and participation in creative subjects helps students at early stages of learning English become part of the school community, accelerating their language skills. ” Triangulatewith data Inspectors could, on occasion, expect to have challenging conversations with schools where uncomfortable truths are aired. In one school I inspected, for instance, a pattern of data spanning three years (backed by pupils’ experiences) indicated that Black Caribbean pupils had received a disproportionate number of exclusions and suspensions, with over one third of that group identified as having SEND. At another school, children told inspectors that they didn’t report racist bullying ‘ For fear of not being listened to ’. Through a sensitive use of data, however, the inspectors did also evidence some successful inclusion strategies, including a use of peer mentors that had led to reductions in bullying and suspensions, and progress in early English acquisition. Inspectors and schools alike must develop a common understanding of inclusion, and a willingness to share accurate data on admissions, progress and exclusions. Above all, there needs to be agreement on what good practice looks like. Ofsted’s new ‘Inclusion’ grade references the 2010 Equality Act, which covers nine protected characteristics, including ethnicity. SEND pupils, children known to social care and those who ‘may face other barriers’ have now become a core focus of inspections, alongside a shift in expectations for schools to meet every student’s needs and be accountable for their SEND provision. For all that, though, the act of actually listening to what children have to say has be at the heart of inclusive education. With schools currently under no obligation to share their own internal data, how can inspectors expect to verify every child’s sense of belonging within learning communities in which everyone is meant to be valued equally – regardless of race, gender, background, ability or neurodiverse need? ABOUT THE AUTHOR Meena Wood is a former principal and HMI, and author of Secondary Curriculum Transformed – Enabling All to Achieve (Routledge, £24.99); she’s also a contributor to the book Beyond Belief – Why School Accountability is Broken and How to Fix It (John Catt, £16) WHERE’S THE DATA? It’s worth remembering how, back in 2019, senior Ofsted leaders inexplicably prevented inspectors from accessing data gathered by the Analyse School Performance (ASP) service. This data provided insightful starting points for discussions with senior school leaders, and was signposted in a school’s self-evaluation against key evidence. If this injunction stays, inspectors will continue to implement the new framework while effectively blindfolded, basing their judgements on one-and-a-half days of observations and conversations with just a handful of school staff and children. 69 teachwire.net/secondary S E N D