DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS AND THEIR SCHOOLS

This section of the report moves beyond the findings from this literature review in order to speculate on how SEN and inclusion are being experienced by teachers in their day-to-day professional practice.

Inclusion

This literature review supports the view that inclusion is a multifaceted construct that is strongly influenced by the political and societal context in which it is housed. As such, inclusion within education has been defined in relation to:

● an ideology and/or aspiration: usually linked to a human rights agenda; ● a place: usually mainstream versus special school;

● a policy: normally from central or local government; ● professional practice: i.e. ‘inclusive teaching’?

● personal experience: how an individual and their parent/carer experiences inclusion.

Although intended, there is not inevitably a coherent relationship between these differing perspectives and definitions. Having an inclusive school policy may not necessarily lead to an individual pupil feeling included unless the school involved seeks to assess the efficacy of their inclusion policy from a range of perspectives and over a period of time. Cole points out:

“If there is no consensus about what inclusion means then it is to be expected that the aims and motivations of various parties may differ and even conflict” (Cole 2006, pp 31).

In spite of SEN and inclusion agendas being driven by national policies, teachers are inevitably experiencing the effects of interpretations of these policies at local authority and school level. Whilst there is this lack of consensus about the meaning of inclusion, public and professional interpretation of inclusion has tended to focus on the placement of children with SEN and disability in mainstream settings. Although welcoming inclusion on to the educational agenda in principle teachers are required to implement it within school cultures characterised by increasing accountability, a continual drive to improve standards, greater responsibility to address wider societal concerns particularly anti-social behaviour and social cohesion, and an emphasis on increased parental choice. This quasi-market in education characterised by ‘measurable outcomes’ has created a potentially hostile climate for the development of policies and practices for inclusion (Fulcher 1999). ‘Measurable outcomes’ initially were rooted in attainment (e.g. literacy, numeracy) but there is now a trend for these outcomes to reflect individual progress in relation to cognitive, social, emotional and physical development.

A pragmatic view of inclusion sets it within available local provision and expectations whereas an ideological view sets inclusion within the wider global context of aspirations for individuals and communities. A focus on the pragmatic allows teachers to develop provision and practice appropriate to perceived need and expectations and also provides a framework for school self- evaluation and continued professional development. The risk factor is that inclusion becomes locally or even institutionally interpreted leading to inconsistencies in pupil experiences and outcomes within and between LAs or individual schools.

A focus on the ideological encourages a more aspirational stance and encourages schools to adopt a challenging, ongoing self-improvement approach located within a wider inclusion agenda that seeks to tackle all forms of exclusionary pressure and discrimination (Booth and Ainscow 2002) and extends beyond those pupils defined as experiencing ‘special educational needs’. The risk of this approach is that unless teachers are supported and trained to accept that inclusion is a process and that ongoing change is integral to their role they run the risk of experience feelings of confusion, inadequacy and guilt.

Traditionally teachers prioritise the needs of all their pupils. Teachers generally endorse the principle of inclusion and the ‘right’ of individual children to be educated alongside their neighbourhood peers. As inclusion has become further entrenched in educational policy and practice there is an emerging view that this ‘right’ to be included in mainstream needs to be balanced by the ‘right’ for SEN pupils to have an education that can meet their needs. As inclusive practice develops these two rights are likely to become more closely aligned for more pupils.

Implications

Schools and their teachers might usefully explore the core questions that underpin their work: ● what is the ‘purpose’ of inclusion for the children we teach? With the sub question ‘do some

purposes (e.g. academic) take greater priority than others (i.e. personal, social, wellbeing)?’ ● how will we measure progress towards that purpose?

● how do we agree a ‘purpose’ with the individual child, parent, LA, etc. so that consistency and coherence of provision is experienced?

Given the confusions inherent within definitions and policies for inclusion it would seem that schools need to keep a clear ‘purpose’ for school learning for pupils with SEN rather than focus on a location, a particular policy, a label, a resource (e.g. LSA, HLTA) or a specialist pedagogy. Schools, headteachers and SENCOs have a key role to play in securing within their schools a consensus of the core aims and outcomes involved in the teaching and learning of pupils with SEN. Additionally, an agreement of purpose with the pupil and their parents/carers, linked to transition planning, may help to reduce the variability that is observed in practice between Early Years, primary, secondary and Post-16 settings.

Given the complexity of interpretations of inclusion at national, local and institutional levels it is likely that individual schools will be exhibiting a range of differing organisational strategies which will, in turn, impact on teacher workload and implementation of workforce reform.

Special Educational Needs

Preceding sections of this report have noted that the development of national policies of inclusion bring difficulty in terms of defining and interpreting the meaning of special educational needs. The strong association of SEN with the inclusion agenda has triggered a reconceptualisation of SEN in response to the social model of disability that underpins inclusion. This has been reflected in the language used in the context of inclusion with, for example, ‘removing barriers’ increasingly replacing ‘meeting needs’. The term SEN itself has been subject to some vulnerability, being viewed by some writers as anachronistic and discriminatory.

The field of SEN has typically been concerned with particular definable groups or individuals for whom ‘additional or different provision’ is prescribed. This group has traditionally attracted its own processes, funding streams, methods of accountability and, in many cases, staffing e.g. SENCOs and teaching assistants.

The coexistence of a medical model alongside a social model leads to variations in identification between schools and LAs. This has resulted in the potential for the categorisation of a child as having SEN in one school but not necessarily in another. Alignment with the medical model encourages a focus on individual difference and the required additional or different provision. A social model on the other hand encourages a more systemic approach focusing on the extent to which the school has in place resources and practices to meet individual diversity. This variability in identification becomes particularly problematic in relation to children with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties (SEBD) where factors such as school ethos and teacher experience are variables. In policy contexts in which funding is linked to identification of individuals with SEN it may be more difficult for schools to move away from a traditional focus on individual deficit and labelling.

It is understandable that the identification of SEN is problematic and variable. Special education has, after all, a long history of seeking to identify and measure difference in relation to population norms for cognitive, social, emotional and physical development. This does not fit well with an

inclusive philosophy. This approach is still evident within the thinking and practices of both health and educational settings. The placing of an emphasis on raising standards in schools has tended to mirror the medical model by focusing on population norms and expectations and, in the case of the National Strategies in England, providing ‘catch up’ interventions to close the gap.

Though the policy rhetoric in relation to inclusion focuses on valuing diversity, of concern is that teachers are having to balance this with continued emphasis on comparison with the ‘norm’ either to address the attainment gap or identify SEN. This has been experienced by teachers through the paradox that they are deemed to have ‘failed’ if SEN pupils are not achieving to the expected age- related level and yet the term SEN is rooted in ‘having greater difficulties in learning than their peers’. The processes associated with SEN have a long association with high levels of bureaucracy (e.g. DfES 2005a, Gross 2000 and OFSTED 1997). The extent to which government strategies, such as whole school planning, have helped to reduce workload has yet to be subject to empirical investigation. Alongside the bureaucracy reduction agenda is the process of workforce remodelling, which effectively increases the number of adults actively involved in school-based and community provision for pupils with SEN, and the Every Child Matters agenda. The increased liaison and joint planning time that characterise collaborative multi-agency provision may result in an increase in workload and bureaucracy.

Implications

An inheritance from special education is the belief that the identification of SEN will enhance the chances of individual children receiving appropriate ‘specialist’ teaching linked to their identified need. There is limited evidence for a specialist pedagogy for pupils with SEN (Davis and Florian 2004) linked to a labelled category of need, but knowledge of SEN and the involvement of a specialist teacher are reported to contribute to good progress for some pupils with SEN. This seems to support the view that the social model of disability, which has been a necessary trigger for a focus on inclusive provision for all pupils, is not sufficient in itself. Clearly there are biological and psychological variables in addition to social variables that contribute to individual differences. Teachers and parents will know that there are some children for whom ‘catch up’ programmes are not appropriate, and others for whom early identification and intervention will not lead to age appropriate outcomes in the longer term. Such an acceptance by teachers does not detract from the important consensus view that all children can, and should make progress.

Competing Policy Agendas

Inclusion has been transposed onto educational systems that often house competing and opposing systems such as school performance tables, a prescribed curriculum and age-assessed attainment. Educational policies in relation to SEN, inclusion, and standards raising have pragmatically tended to develop in parallel, rather than as coherent synergised directives that serve to inform planning and practice in schools. As this literature review has previously suggested the heritage and end goals of each of these three agendas is different.

Many teachers may not be aware of the source of this tension but experience it as a general pressure arising from the plethora of national and local initiatives and policy directives.

As noted previously in this review, within any one school or LA, one agenda may be prioritised over another. Senior managers, for example, may be very concerned with performance tables and externally assessed levels of attainment of groups of pupils. This would be quite reasonable given external criteria for ascribing labels of ‘successful’ schools and the associated career aspirations of teachers. The SENCO may be more focused on delivering policies for SEN that seek to include pupils and recognise the broader achievements of pupils with SEN from their starting point. The class teacher may be focused on the day-to-day provision of quality teaching for the whole class whilst maintaining a responsibility for the learning needs of individual pupils who experience SEN. Teachers may experience the tensions between the three agendas as a choice to be made rather than a balance to be struck. Fragmented approaches to the three agendas could be experienced by individual pupils and their parents as exclusionary.

Interpretation at school level may lead to a very different school ethos. Prioritising standards raising may result in schools inevitably having a concern for those pupils who ‘fall below’ national age- related expectations. This interpretation would result in schools’ strategies for inclusion being directed towards compensatory and catch up approaches. The efficacy of their inclusion policy would be judged in relation to the extent to which the gap between ‘mainstream’ and SEN attainment has been narrowed. In contrast, an approach that focuses on diversity values achievement in terms of personal progress rather than attainment compared to national expectations.

Implications

Arguably, the greatest disservice to teachers would be to suggest that the complexities arising from the coexistence of these agendas within schools do not exist or can be easily ameliorated through training or the issuing of ‘good practice’ guidance. Schools could usefully examine the extent to which standards raising narrowly defined in terms of improvements in literacy and numeracy is operationalised in a manner that is compatible with a policy of inclusion and the achievement of holistic outcomes for all pupils, including those with SEN. Given their different heritage and end goals, the blending and balancing of standards raising, SEN and inclusion agendas is not an easy process but it is necessary if the inclusion of pupils with SEN is to be successfully embedded in whole school development.

Training

Issues of training may on the surface appear to be easy to resolve but may in reality be the most complex. A core issue, as highlighted within this literature review, is the varying and changing interpretations of inclusion and SEN. It follows that LA provision of training and schools’ and individual requests for training are going to be influenced by these interpretations. If an interpretation of SEN is one in which individual difference is paramount then the demand for and provision of training is likely to prioritise individualised specialist approaches linked to categories of need. If, however, the social model that underpins inclusion is prioritised then there is likely to be an emphasis on improving teaching and learning opportunities for all children with an emphasis on whole class approaches and ‘removing barriers’. In reality it is unhelpful if these two perspectives are viewed or presented as oppositional. A more productive way forward would be a focus on a bio/psycho/social approach and an emphasis on securing improved holistic outcomes for individuals. At surface level increased inclusion would be expected to bring demand for training in SEN pedagogies and approaches for all teachers, not just those concerned with SEN. In this context training in relation to those children who pose particular difficulties for inclusion in group settings, such as those with autistic spectrum disorders, SEBD and Speech and Language Difficulties is likely to be sought by schools and their teachers. To some extent this need is being addressed through national training materials provided both through paper-based and electronic guidance. This kind of model of ‘additional or different’ training for SEN presupposes that the teacher’s main role in imparting subject knowledge remains unchanged. However, that is far from the case, as policies such as Every Child Matters (2004) and Getting it Right for Every Child (Scottish Executive 2006) suggest. The reality is that an enhancement in SEN expertise would not in itself suffice in preparing teachers for the sea change in policy and practice within schools. These changes are primarily concerned with interprofessionalism and personalisation and, as such, demand a different focus within training. In formulating policy for any prescribed training it is necessary to look at both building teachers’ capacity to operate using the systems and process currently in place but also equipping them for the changing role of teaching profession. If teachers are to act as learning co-ordinators with responsibility for cultivating generic capabilities such as learning how to learn, problem-solving and critical thinking (Kirk and Broadhead 2007) and embed their individual mastery of pedagogic skills and approaches in collaborative and relational professional action (Kirk and Broadhead 2007) it requires a significantly different emphasis in training.

Issues of training are located within a changing landscape as schools move from a focus on SEN towards an increasing focus on inclusion. Within this process an important trend is recognition of how local knowledge is constructed when teaching specific pupils in schools. It is therefore

important for teachers to engage in school-based research as a contribution to a wider knowledge base and critical understanding about meeting pupils’ special educational needs. Additionally, ongoing research in the field of neuroscience is seen by the public and many professionals as a fertile and useful area for improving understanding and provision for children who experience special educational needs. This changing landscape against which interpretations of SEN and inclusion exist is itself an issue and influence for the provision and efficacy of training.

Training issues linked to SEN but more widely rooted within a wider social inclusion agenda include the management of behaviour and the early identification of individuals and groups vulnerable to social exclusion. This is a challenging area for training in that it demands a focus on how cognitive, affective, physical and social developmental elements interact to produce differences in learning and behaviour. For example, if teachers ‘understand’ how language and communication contribute to behavioural difficulties (Peacey 2005) they will feel better able to plan to reduce behavioural problems.

Teachers and their schools are necessarily caught up in issues of feasibility and confidence in relation to the inclusion agenda in which they have the responsibility of teaching all children, including those with SEN. Schools and their teachers may be asking themselves ‘What am I expected to know and do in relation to SEN and inclusion?’ and ‘What can I feasibly do?’

Whilst in relation to the first of these questions there are expectations within professional standards and the requirements of external inspection there is less consensus about the second question. This is likely to depend on school factors such as the nature, ethos, location and resources, individual teacher factors such as experience, values and attitudes and individual child factors.

In reality, schools will be experiencing the need to deliver Government initiatives, against which they will be evaluated; support new teachers to strengthen their core practices for SEN and inclusion; and support existing staff to engage in ongoing professional development. There is a need to gather empirical data on the take up and impact of training on the classroom experience of teachers and outcomes for pupils.

Implications

This literature review suggests that if training is to be effective it needs to address the two previously identified questions: ‘What am I expected to know and do in relation to SEN and inclusion?’ and ‘What can I feasibly do?’