The flex: reasonable adjustment in the classroom for pupils with SEND

When it comes to getting classroom teaching right for pupils with SEND, it isn’t always about funding. It isn’t always about having years and years of specialist SEND training. It’s about the flex.

Consistent in your principles; flexible in your practices

One of the best INSET sessions I ever attended was by Rob Long. I’ve no idea what he’s doing now, but I remember him talking about schools being ‘consistent in their principles; flexible in their practices’. I was a Head of Year at the time and this advice influenced my pastoral work. It then went on to influence my work as a SENDCO.

In SEND, we call this reasonable adjustments of course. We might associate this term with legal rights, protected characteristics, classroom strategies. But in practice as a classroom teacher or TA, it’s one of the hardest things to get right – how do I maintain high expectations for all, yet make exceptions for some? How can I create a classroom that is fair, when I’m treating pupils differently?

Which leads us to an image like this, often used in CPD around SEND:

The point of this image for teachers and TAs is 2-fold of course:

1. That it’s okay to provide different supports for pupils if it increases their access;
2. That if we can deliver lessons in a way that ensures individual support arrangements are not required, removing the barrier in the first place, that is ultimately ‘inclusive by design’.

In short, that we have flex in what we do.

Putting the ‘flex’ into our teaching

For those new to the profession in particular, there can be a steep learning curve here. If my objective is that pupils enter the classroom in silence, begin their work independently and share their answers in full spoken sentences, what might that look like for a child with ADHD, MLD and SLCN respectively*?

It starts with the principle above. If what I can provide for all pupils reduces the need for individual adaptations (justice, in the image above), perfect. If some individual adaptations allow all pupils to meet teacher expectations (equity, in the image above), great.

What might those individual adaptations look like? Let’s take the 3 examples above: silent entry, starting work independently and giving full sentence spoken answers. What might flex look like in these contexts?

Silent entry – a silent entry to the classroom will be tricky for certain pupils, but it might be made easier when the teacher checks in with that child before they enter, gives them a specific job to do when they enter the classroom and/or tells them they will be checking in with them individually, once the class are sat down.

Starting work independently – this will be tricky for certain pupils, but it might be made easier when single-step instructions are clear on the board, when the work increases in difficulty as pupils complete it (i.e. no one looks at Q1 and sees impossibility) and when prompts are provided (knowledge organisers, etc.) to support pupils if they get stuck.

Sharing an answer in a full spoken sentence – this will be tricky for certain pupils, but it might be made easier when the pupil rehearses their answer with a partner, writes it in a sentence or sees/hears a model answer first.

These specific supports won’t work for all pupils of course, but they are examples of a teacher offering flexibility, based on an understanding of a pupil’s individual strengths and needs.

Applying ‘the flex’ to behaviour

The same principle applies for promoting positive learning behaviours. In all the best schools I’ve worked in, the positive behaviour of pupils is supported by a consistent, explicit and well-articulated system. But it wasn’t a system that could work without flex.

Consider some common approaches to behaviour taken in schools. Generally in schools, pupils are expected to move calmly in corridors and to focus on teacher instruction in class. That’s an appropriate aspiration for all pupils, and not one we should merely abandon when pupils are on a SEND register. However, in our equality/equity/justice model, that consistent principle requires flexible practice. What might flex look like here?

Moving calmly in corridors – this will be tricky for certain pupils, but it might be made easier when adjustments are in place for some pupils – staggered exits from class, additional supervision at certain times in the day and the explicit teaching of expected behaviours.

Focusing on teacher instruction in class – this will be tricky for certain pupils, but we can set more pupils up for success if we understand what motivates and supports them to succeed – perhaps through showing a pupil the progress they are making, through an intelligent seating plan and through teacher instruction that uses pause, pace, repetition and questioning appropriately.

There are countless examples of what reasonable adjustment in classrooms can look like (books by Natalie Packer and Sara Alston are full of many great examples), but these can never account for every classroom scenario. The point for teachers is the flex.

With a mindset of flex, we can continue to aim high for all, but make sure we are taking all pupils with us. We can create a classroom that is not merely equal, and not only equitable, but provides access to a meaningful education for all pupils.

*It’s also about managing the value of the labels we attach to certain children. A child’s label of ADHD/MLD/SLCN might be a useful shortcut – and might be essential knowledge for all staff to have –  but it will never be sufficient on its own.

Gary Aubin is author of The Lone SENDCO, a handbook for SENDCOs of over 300 questions and answers.