SEND Matters

OFSTED’s gift to pupils with SEND? The gift of Assess-Plan-Do-Review

With the new School OFSTED framework comes a clear steer to educational settings – inclusion is truly everyone’s business. Of the many commitments to inclusion, there is one that stands out for me:

Leaders use the ‘graduated approach’ (a continuous cycle of ‘assess, plan, do and review’), which helps to ensure that pupils receive an appropriate level of support and meets pupils’ needs, and staff receive suitable training and support to implement it.

Of the many things a school will be doing to get inspection-ready, embedding the graduated approach need not be ‘an extra thing’, but a way to support collaborative, honest, whole-school ownership of pupils and their provision.

The Lone SENDCO

I don’t know any SENDCOs who just need to work harder. Most SENDCOs I know are responding to an increase in higher levels of need in many ways – making more EHCNA requests, meeting more families, reviewing more plans, setting up more interventions and still trying to make it into classrooms to support practice.

And if you ask many SENCOs how they feel about the phrase ‘Assess-Plan-Do-Review’ (APDR), it’s a feeling of being weighed down by cycles of written evidence, kept as part of applications for an EHC Needs Assessment. Keeping APDR spreadsheets up-to-date can end up being one of a very long list of paperwork tasks.

Lived and breathed

Of course, in relation to inspection, evidence is needed. But when schools get the ‘graduated approach’ right, a culture of APDR becomes lived and breathed by all stakeholders. It becomes a culture of everyone noticing who needs what, trying something accordingly, and identifying the right next steps.

This might be both in-the-moment, and over the course of time.

	In-the-moment	Over time
Assess	Teachers build in good formative assessment as part of their typical practice, giving them a good understanding of how pupils are doing in a given task.	Middle leaders take feedback on how their curriculum (and its delivery) are supporting pupils with SEND to make good progress. This feedback might be through discussions with staff, learning walks, summative data and the views of pupils.
Plan	Teachers use this understanding to identify where support might be needed – a scaffold provided, an explanation restated, some prior learning revisited or a misconception addressed.	These middle leaders then work with their teams to plan curriculum adaptations and teaching strategies that can help to secure more successful learning outcomes for these pupils.
Do	The support is given (to the pupil, a group of pupils or the class) that mitigates whatever might be preventing successful learning.	Implementation of the planned action takes place, with the agreed curriculum adaptations and teaching strategies enacted in classrooms.
Review	Further checks for understanding ensure the teacher knows whether the support was successful, and give clues as to what might be needed next.	Middle leaders lead a process, potentially with senior leadership support, reviewing any changes made. Evidence may be from staff feedback, pupil views, work in books, summative test data or learning walks.

The need for evidence

Schools would be foolish not to consider, in advance, how their provision can be evidenced against the framework during an inspection. But evidence comes in many forms – in teacher practices, in notes from meetings, in work in pupils’ books and in how pupils talk about the support they get in class. Where APDR is embedded throughout the culture of a school, naturally-occurring evidence also can appear in a way that is at least as powerful, if not more, than binders on a SENCO’s shelf.

Assess-Plan-Do?

And finally, APDR gives us the right to get it wrong. The point isn’t perfection – if perfection were possible for our pupils, our cycle would be ‘Assess-Plan-Do’. The presence of ‘Review’ acknowledges that it won’t always be right, and it won’t ever be finished.

If a lived-and-breathed APDR process becomes a core part of inspections under this new framework, that makes sense to me. It’s about a commitment to knowing our learners, adapting to their current needs, reflecting on the impact of our work, and ‘going again’ – which everyone in a school can be a positive part of.

Gary Aubin is author of The Lone SENDCO and co-author of The Parent’s Guide to SEND.

SEND and the Curriculum and Assessment Review – recommendations that give hope for pupils with SEND

Many elements of required SEND Reform lie outside of Curriculum and Assessment. But many also lie within it. The Final Report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review offers hopeful messages around what evolutions to our system could mean for pupils with SEND and their families.

A National Curriculum for everyone

An excellent curriculum widens opportunity for all pupils, and particularly helps those who would otherwise be poorly served.

Deliverable

Deliverable is about having the right volume of content; depth of understanding is limited, when a curriculum is too broad.

The Review’s report recognises that the volume isn’t right in many phases and subjects. This makes it ‘challenging to explore topics in sufficient detail’, likely to limit mastery for pupils who might need a bit longer to learn, and to restrict depth and application for those that find a subject easier. Too much content can then have a knock-on effect for non-assessed subjects in both primary and secondary phases. The Report calls for an appropriate volume of content.

Deliverable is about giving schools space. In some cases, this will mean space to go beyond the National Curriculum, by surpassing or deepening it, or enriching it with locally-relevant content. In other cases, it will provide space for schools to repeat, to consolidate and to teach adaptively, based on pupil needs. In both cases, the opportunity for pupils with SEND to thrive is increased. The Report calls for space.

Representative

Following extensive stakeholder engagement, we’re calling for greater representation across the National Curriculum. One of the things this can mean is positive representations of disabled people within the curriculum, removing deficit-led narratives and showcasing the achievements, contributions and therefore full potential of disabled people.

Applied knowledge and skills

Many stakeholders in SEND argue for greater life skills education on the National Curriculum. As such, we are recommending that applied knowledge and skills will run through curriculum development, for example around oracy and financial education, including a new Oracy framework. We’re also recommending Citizenship becomes statutory in primary schools, so that all pupils can access a curriculum teaching healthy lifestyles, personal safety, good relationships, resolving differences, managing risk and more.

A focus on progression

Progression is multi-faceted. It’s dependent on a number of things. But well-designed curriculum pathways give the greatest chance for all pupils to make progress from their starting points.

Well-sequenced curricula

Progression isn’t always linear, but a well-sequenced curriculum has coherence and supports pupils sensibly as they move through education. We’re recommending coherence as a key curriculum principle, both vertically (in one subject, from one year to the next) and horizontally (across subjects within the same year), to benefit all pupils but to particularly benefit learners who might face additional barriers to learning. This is particularly important in the transition from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3.

Greater choice at Key Stage 4

Our recommendation for the removal of EBacc is about opening up choice for pupils. While many will be well-served by the broad academic portfolio of EBacc, many will be served better by increased flexibility, choosing more of the subjects that inspire and motivate them, and which play to their strengths as learners.

Improved 16-19 pathways

We still believe progression in Maths and English is vital at post-16 for those without a Grade 4+ at GCSE, but we recognise the failings of the current GCSE retakes approach. For pupils without a grade 3+ in Maths or English, we’re recommending stepped Level 1 qualifications, which can close gaps in foundational knowledge and increase confidence and competence for pupils who are not yet GCSE-ready.

We also believe in the importance of high-quality vocational pathways, recommending the introduction of high-quality ‘V Level’ qualifications that will sit alongside A Levels and T Levels.

Assessments that work

We have made several recommendations that look to address inequities in our current assessment system.

The right content

We recommend amending the GPS test in Year 6, so it better assesses writing composition and applied grammar and punctuation, with an increased focus on writing fluency, without some of the highly technical aspects that characterise the current test.

We’re recommending that assessment methods match the core aims of a given subject. Where a pupil excels as an artist, musician or actor, it is right that the assessment methods of those subjects play to that pupil’s strengths and allow them to showcase their talents.

The right volume

We’re recommending a reduction of at least 10% in the volume of assessment for pupils studying GCSEs. Pupils must have the best chance to show what they know and what they can do, without an unnecessarily burdensome volume of assessment.

The right support

For non-verbal and pre-verbal pupils, we think the Phonics Screening Check can still be an essential method of tracking the progress of pupils, but not as it is currently administered. We think this can be done better. We think the Multiplication Tables Check is useful, but that additional adaptations should be explored for pupils with processing speed differences.

For all pupils, we think accessibility must be at the heart of developments to both curriculum content and to their corresponding assessments. For example, within assessment, we outline the potential of digital assessments to maximise inclusion through their design.

The right information

We think secondary teachers can be better supported to understand what the Key Stage 2 SATs results tell them about pupils’ gaps in learning, so they can look to close those gaps in year 7.

We think a diagnostic test of English and Maths – not used in performance tables – can help schools to spot weaknesses in learning, so they can look to close those gaps by the end of year 9, before GCSE study begins.

Support to get it right in practice

We know that skilled teachers bring the National Curriculum to life for the pupils in front of them. However, we have heard from teachers about the challenges in doing so for some pupils with SEND.

We are therefore not looking to change the autonomy of specialist, AP and other settings to appropriately adapt the National Curriculum, and in certain cases in specialist settings, to disapply it.

However, we are recommending that all settings are provided with guidance and exemplification that supports high-quality curriculum adaptation, to guide schools’ work for those pupils with SEND who may need it.

The full report is now available on the GOV.UK website.

What kind of SENDCO are you?

I’ve had the pleasure of meeting thousands of SENDCOs; some I know well, others I’ve met fleetingly. My encounters suggest there are a number of ways to approach this role.

The Rescuer

Definition: Looking to solve everyone’s problems for them. Always there whenever there’s a crisis.

Pros: When they’re really needed, The Rescuer won’t shy away – they roll up their sleeves and do what’s required. When there’s a crisis, they’re exactly what you need.

Cons: The rescuer is in danger of taking people’s problems from them, rather than supporting them to deal with them better for themselves. In addition, constantly being in crisis mode can make it harder to address longer-term, strategic priorities.

The Administrator

Definition: Concerned with systems, processes and paperwork that keep things ticking over.

Pros: When it comes to statutory compliance and multi-agency working, The Administrator gets things done, meets deadlines and leaves no email unanswered.

Cons: Excellent administrative work can limit the time a SENDCO spends around school, working with colleagues, pupils and families. How many SENDCOs manage to keep up with paperwork, have zero unread emails and directly influence teaching and learning?

The Friend

Definition: Similar to The Rescuer, this SENDCO is highly visible and is a friendly ear to colleagues, families and pupils. Ever-ready to listen, they’re often seen nodding supportively to whoever might need to offload.

Pros: If parents are to feel they can trust a school, and colleagues are to feel the support of their SENDCO, a listening ear is essential. SENDCOs who make the time to engage generously with stakeholders surely get further than those who don’t.

Cons: If one core aspect of the SENDCO role is to ensure excellent practice takes place across a school for pupils with SEND, being The Friend may not make it easy to hold colleagues to account for their work.

The Strategist

Definition: This SENDCO recognises the importance of setting a long-term goal and sets the strategic direction to help their school achieve it.

Pros: It can be hard to work with focus when the role is so multi-faceted and fast-paced, but The Strategist stays true to the things that might just matter most in the long-term. Where the role can be so complex, a clear vision for the future can be an invaluable compass to the school’s work.

Cons: Where things are multi-faceted and fast-paced, schools need someone who can react to the ‘now’, sometimes irrespective of the longer-term vision.

The Advocate

Definition: This SENDCO always fights a pupil’s corner, helping to champion positivity around pupils with SEND.

Pros: There’s nothing like having someone sticking up for you. Reminding colleagues that pupils with SEND thriving in school is not only essential, but it’s also possible, can take the school a long way.

Cons: Colleagues will need to feel that their difficulties are understood and their concerns listened to. Being actively ‘on the side’ of pupils can risk inferring that others in school might not be.

The Pedagogist

Definition: Endlessly focusing on teaching and learning, The Pedagogist sees everything through the lens of the decisions that teachers make to support their learners in classrooms.

Pros: If great teaching is the greatest single factor broadly within the control of schools, The Pedagogist makes a significant difference to the 6 hours per day that most pupils spend with their teachers.

Cons: Balance is key to a SENDCO’s success. Focusing on T&L is essential, but must be balanced alongside working with families, leading an intervention programme, meeting other statutory duties and much more besides.

And so…

No one is a caricature. SENDCOs might recognise some of these archetypes in themselves, and many others not listed.

SENDCOs asking themselves ‘What kind of a SENDCO am I?’ might be a frivolous pastime or a way to continually improve – or perhaps both. It might be a chance to reflect on where our SEND system forces SENDCOs to work in a particular way, perhaps aligned to one of the 6 archetypes above.

There isn’t one way to be a great SENDCO, but perhaps by leaning into some of these archetypes, and being aware of where they’re still working on others, SENDCOs can keep aspiring to even greater greatness, whatever that looks like to them.

Gary Aubin is author of The Lone SENDCO and co-author of The Parent’s Guide to SEND.

6 ways to add impact to your pupil profiles

1-page profiles, pen portraits, pupil passports, pupil profiles. Lots of alliteration to describe a single document that paints a picture of a pupil with SEND.

These are often implemented as a way to record pupil/parent voice, to communicate with a staff team succinctly and to monitor effective teaching.

SENDCOs work tirelessly on their creation and review, yet they can leave teachers feeling overwhelmed. They can cause ‘death by strategies’ or even prevent teachers from noticing what’s in front of them, sticking rigidly to the piece of paper they’ve been given.

These 6 tips might just support these profiles to have increased impact.

Write them in a language that everyone understands

SEND has its own language. There is nothing wrong with this, but there are real benefits to speaking a language of teaching and learning when communicating across a staff body. If we speak a language everyone understands, we’re enabling independent use of these documents. Do low-arousal learning environments or visual cues mean as much to our colleagues as they might do to SENDCOs?

Develop systems for them to be read, annotated and updated

Perhaps it’s just a professional duty of staff to read and interpret these documents, but the increase in pupils with SEND means we might need to use directed time differently in schools.

More time focusing on SEND might not mean twice the number of specialists coming to the school to deliver CPD; it might mean that each term staff are reading pupil profiles together in departments, asking for clarity around certain approaches or sharing thoughts on what, for example, a communication-rich environment looks like in History or how a distraction-free learning environment might look in Year 2.

Using meeting cycles to overcome these challenges, with pupil profiles as the catalyst for discussion, feels like one appropriate response to increasing levels of need.

Reduce where necessary by leaning on your ‘Ordinarily Available Provision‘

There is a pragmatic reason why we need to reduce strategies – it’s not possible for teachers to implement dozens of approaches at once, and I’d argue the best teaching doesn’t attempt to do so.

So where a strategy asks the teacher to ensure ‘clear instructions’, ‘high expectations’ or ‘relationships of trust’, we should ask ourselves whether these should be needed. Are they really ‘additional to or different from’ what we would expect all the time?

Where can we move things to the ‘universal offer’, as an expectation for every child, perhaps using the back page of the pupil profile to explicitly articulate this universal offer to staff, to families and to the pupils themselves?

Frame them as ideas, in many cases

Some of the strategies we might recommend are essential; they are a school delivering on its legal duty to implement reasonable adjustments. For the pupil who is partially deaf to sit on one side of the classroom or the pupil who is situationally mute not to be made to verbalise in class, these strategies are essential and a pupil profile should communicate as such.

Some of these strategies, however, should be framed as things for teachers to use where helpful. For example, a pupil might generally benefit from having the slides printed on their desk, but in some cases this may be unhelpful – perhaps the teacher needs the pupil to ‘stay with the rest of the class’, if they are to fully access today’s learning.

A pupil might require a time out. While the teacher would permit it often, they might sometimes use their knowledge of (and relationship with) the pupil to delay them leaving the class where their judgement says this is possible, or use a distraction technique instead.

To empower teachers, therefore, pupil profiles might separate that which is non-negotiable (perhaps placing these in bold), and that which teachers should consider, trusting colleagues’ professional judgement to use them where helpful.

Monitor supportively

If the implementation of dozens of strategies simultaneously is neither possible nor desirable, we must ensure our monitoring processes recognise this.

Walking into classrooms with pupil profiles in hand may be useful for reviewing what’s taking place in class for a child, but not if success means all strategies are implemented all of the time. Some of the best inclusive practice is invisible, worked in at the whole-class level without the pupil ‘standing out’ through always receiving different instruction or additional resources.

Monitoring processes that are simply checklists of strategies on a pupil profile surely underplay the complexity of meeting the needs of pupils with SEND in an inclusive manner.

Assess-Plan-Do-REVIEW

These documents must be reviewed. Needs are not ‘frozen in time’; barriers to learning can come and go; strategies can work for a while and then lose their impact.

It’s therefore important that pupils, families and staff all have opportunities to contribute to editing the pupil profile, to ensure it remains relevant.

To be clear, if I visited a school without any pupil profiles, I’d suggest they work hard to write good ones, and to do it quickly. There’s nothing wrong with succinct documents about pupils and their needs. But there are some subtle ways to make them better, and important systems that will increase their impact.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that pupil profiles almost never say that teachers should be kind, be positive, believe in and listen to the child or ‘go again’ in the afternoon after a difficult morning. Yet often, this is what seems to matter the most. While a focus on teaching strategies is vital, we must never forget that it’s the human qualities we bring to a classroom that often provide the clearest benefit to all pupils, and particularly to many pupils with SEND.

Gary Aubin is author of The Lone SENDCO and co-author of The Parent’s Guide to SEND

Joyous ownership of our pupils with SEND

Here’s an easy question to ask a SENDCO or other school leader: Whose responsibility are our pupils with SEND?

We know the answer – everybody’s. We know that every teacher should be a teacher of SEND, every leader a leader of SEND. And yet, it’s possible that some of our actions move us away from this collective ownership being lived and breathed, positively, by colleagues across a school.

Joyous ownership

On occasion, there’s an unhelpful subtext to the positive statement that ‘every teacher is a teacher of SEND’. It can be used as a statement that’s high on accountability and expectation, and low on support. It can be used to mean ‘work harder’, rather than ‘don’t forget what a privilege it is to be involved in the education of children and young people with SEND, and here’s how we can support you to make this happen’.

And sometimes we can inadvertently cause this problem for ourselves.

Moving away from joyous ownership?

Colleagues are unlikely to joyously own the education of pupils with SEND if we make it feel impossible. If we add strategies on top of strategies, inferring that the only way to meet needs is to be somehow superhuman in the number of things teachers need to do simultaneously, or if we give advice that creates unrealistic demands on planning time.

Similarly, if colleagues feel only high-stakes accountability around SEND, in which criticism is around the corner when a learning activity isn’t going well for a pupil with SEND, it’s hard to build positivity. If colleagues feel that others only see what isn’t working, rather than what is, it’s hard to ensure colleagues feel joyous about the challenges that teaching a diverse class can bring.

And finally, joyous ownership is absent where the dominant narrative is that the school is doing a pupil with SEND a favour by educating them. Where the discussion becomes ‘well, their needs are so great, what can we be expected to do?’, or where the emphasis is on ‘just having them until the special school place opens up’, it’s hard to engage colleagues positively, with full commitment to inclusive practice.

Moving towards joyous ownership

Conversely, there are schools across the country who achieve this joyous ownership.

They do this by being okay with imperfection, promoting and supporting a spirit of open reflection and experimentation (or, in the words of the Code of Practice, an Assess-Plan-Do-Review cycle).

They do this by showing colleagues what it looks like when done well, whether through peer observations, video clips of colleagues’ practice, partnerships with other schools (particularly local special schools), memberships of national networks or by using online advice or exemplification.

They do this by embedding a mindset of inclusion, where the education of every pupil is seen as equally valid and where the school proudly narrates its place at the heart of its community, serving its local population.

And they do this through celebrating successes, reminding colleagues that pupils’ progress (in all its forms) comes as a direct result of the hard work, skill and passion of colleagues in school.

A tricky reality

As schools embark on a new term, no doubt there will be teachers and leaders looking at complex new cohorts arriving at their school, coming with needs not seen before in their setting or in such numbers as to be overwhelming.

And external pressures don’t always make this easy – where training routes for staff, properly-funded EHCPs or the availability of SEND specialists are hard to come by, it’s not easy to feel positive about the term or year ahead.

And therefore, the responsibility on school leaders to ensure joyous ownership of pupils with SEND is even greater. The need for all leaders to remain positive advocates for inclusion, in the context of great challenge, becomes clearer than ever.

Maintaining positivity around the phrase ‘every teacher being a teacher of SEND’ might be tricky, but if feels key to achieving true, and joyous, whole-school ownership of pupils with SEND.

Gary Aubin is author of The Lone SENDCO and co-author of The Parent’s Guide to SEND.

EHCPs: a golden ticket…but who’s building the chocolate factory?

On paper, so much about EHCPs is wonderful: they support those who need it most to access specialist assessment; they capture pupil and parent voice; they articulate needs, outcomes and provision; they pull together education, health and care needs; they avoid a cliff-edge at 18; they might even bring some additional funding.

In this context, they might indeed be thought of as a golden ticket. But a golden ticket to what? For the experience of too many families, the golden ticket might be in their hand, but the chocolate factory feels like it hasn’t been built yet.

Inclusive schools

I wouldn’t want to count the number of families who worked hard to get an EHCP for their child, but where the EHCP hasn’t prevented multiple failed school placements.

Stepping back from the individual lines of a Section F for a moment, what might a school do that particularly supports many pupils with SEND? It’s not an exhaustive list, but I suspect most would agree with these:

Consistent teaching staff, who understand the needs of their pupils and are expert at adapting accordingly;
A curriculum that is built with those pupils in mind, that flexes accordingly to ensure it remains achievable and ambitious for all pupils;
A commitment to the holistic development of pupils, delivering a broad curriculum and honouring vocational pathways.

Can we confidently say that our current education system makes these features the norm? Aren’t there national challenges around teacher recruitment, around access to training, around the current national curriculum and around our accountability system, that threaten the delivery of these in schools?

It’s hard to think that the national education system, as it is currently, helps schools to ensure their ‘chocolate factory’ is designed to support all pupils, including those with SEND.

No wonder, in this context, that there is such strength of feeling against the reported moves away from EHCPs.

Delivering the provision within an EHCP

Even if a pupil finds themselves in a school that makes the most delicious chocolate – the features set out above and more – what are the things that might make it very tricky for that school to deliver on the ‘Section F’ and ensure the right provision is in place?

A high staff turnover might make it impossible for trained staff to deliver a given intervention.
Cuts to staffing might make it hard to provide a pupil with the sensory circuit, numeracy intervention or mentoring conversation that an EHCP requires.
Inappropriately funded EHCPs might prevent a school from providing the level of additional adult support that they should be providing.

The legal duty for these things to be delivered (lying ultimately with the local authority) remains, but the logistical challenges for all parties in delivering them are often real.

The way forward

What I’m suggesting here is not that EHCPs don’t have their place. It’s not that parents shouldn’t hold on to the protections that an EHCP can give. It’s that EHCPs are an important part of the picture, but aren’t the whole picture.

EHCPs can be the golden ticket that opens up access to high-quality provision, but there is so much else (that is linked, but distinct) that really needs to be in place in order to deliver well on most EHCPs – inclusive mindsets, specialist teaching routes, access to external specialists, well-embedded routines, calm purposeful learning environments, staff who feel equipped to meet ever-growing needs, and more besides.

When the system delivers on all the above and more, EHCPs will be able to take their place as golden tickets, delivering the additional targeted and specialist support that some pupils require.

Schools and families – do we want the same thing for our children with SEND?

I’ve never met a parent who doesn’t want the best for their child.

I’ve never met a teacher who doesn’t want the best for their pupils.

So, if we universally want the best for the children and young people in our care, why is there so much dissatisfaction with what’s taking place in schools? Perhaps it comes from a disagreement over whose ‘best’ we’re looking at.

A growing unhappiness

A Browne Jacobson survey (2024) found that the majority of school leaders reported an increase in parental complaints, with ‘support for pupils with special educational needs’ being the most prevalent topic of complaint. An NAHT survey of school leaders found this increase to be sustained over several years. There seems little doubt that many parents are unhappy with the provision their children receive when they have SEND.

Where our aims align

The 2024 Parentkind Survey asked parents ‘How important do you think it is that your child’s school curriculum focuses on the following?’. Of the answers given by parents, these are their top 5:

While educators may not answer the question in quite the same way, the teachers, TAs and school leaders I know would all be happy to accept the vital importance of what parents are asking for here – that children navigate the world confidently, deal with a range of situations well, are happy in themselves, communicate well and bring a bit of good to the world.

If those answers provide evidence that educators broadly align with what parents want, we could look to the Headteacher Standards to see evidence that parents broadly align with what school leaders aspire to:

I don’t know any parents who would disagree with these statements around what Headteachers are expected to prioritise.

Where it’s not that simple

Many parents, and many school staff, will know that this isn’t as simple as I suggest.

A school doing a great job will work hard to fulfil its statutory imperatives, to maintain a high pupil attendance and to ensure its pupils leave with the best exam results possible. They would be right to argue that they have pupils’ best interests at heart when they do all these things and more.

That doesn’t mean it always matches a parent’s priorities. A parent may very understandably not be able to see past their own family’s financial worries, work pressures or health concerns. While many schools talk proudly of supporting the whole child, few could claim to take quite the holistic view that a parent does of their child.

Why this matters

Of course, we need to put the child at the centre. By working together in a spirit of positive partnership, the child’s needs guide our work in a way that is only positive.

However, it’s over-simplistic to assume that, when we all put the child at the centre, things are straightforward. It’s easy to assume that a shared definition of ‘what’s best for the child’ can exist, when both parents and school colleagues might have different answers as to what is best in different areas for a child – should they take 8 GCSEs, or 9? Do they deserve to lose their breaktime for something that happened? Shall we reduce TA support in the afternoons? Shall we make the school trip mandatory?

Clearly, open dialogue and respect for each other’s views get us a long way here. A spirit of coproduction – on both sides – helps us to keep the child at the centre. But it’s perhaps only when we understand that what matters to each of us is a bit different, that we can achieve the empathy that this relationship deserves.

Gary Aubin and Stephen Hull have co-written The Parent’s Guide to SEND: Supporting your child with additional needs at home, school and beyond.

Find a one-pager with questions to ask when your child is transitioning to a new school, here.

References

School leaders survey findings – Spring 2024

The National Parent Survey 2024

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-standards-of-excellence-for-headteachers

School Transition for pupils with SEND – How Parents Can Support

A successful partnership between school and home is so important if a child with SEND is to thrive in school. This is perhaps never truer than when a child is changing school.

Why is this tricky for schools?

Transition can be hard to manage for school staff.

When classes of children leave primary or secondary school, they might go to a dozen or more different settings. Your child’s school may have relationships with some of those settings, but probably not all of them.

When classes of children are in their transition year, they’re often also in a key exam year. The school may well have their eyes on exams until well into the summer term, while Ideally, preparing your child for their next school or college starts well before then.

When schools are thinking about those pupils who will arrive in September, they’re also working hard to support those pupils they’ve already got. Finding the time and space to get transition right for pupils they’ve perhaps never met is vital, but it’s hard.

How parents can support

Parents will do lots themselves to support transition – conversations about the new school, settling nerves about change, etc.

Parents should also be able to put their faith in the transition processes organised by the relevant schools, sometimes coordinated by a local authority.

That said, many parents of children with SEND will need reassurance about the transition process – reassurance that it’s being done well by both the setting their child is leaving and the setting their child is joining.

Asking the right questions

As a parent, it’s not necessarily about having the answers – schools will also have their own expertise around how to prepare pupils for leaving or joining a school. It may well be about asking the right questions, however.

When writing The Parent’s Guide to SEND, we decided to suggest what some of those questions might be around transition. Find the one-pager with questions to ask when your child is transitioning to a new school, here. Parents might choose to use these questions – not to seek argument with the school, but to gain the reassurance they’re looking for. In the book, we’ve also suggested some questions that parents might ask a teacher, a TA or a SENDCO. We’ve suggested questions that parents might ask a school at a school open morning, in the run-up to exams or while preparing to attend a residential trip.

In our book, we’ve also provided a bit of advice for parents – around morning routines, engaging specialists, developing your child’s love of reading or approaching special occasions.

One book will never address every question that every parent has. But we know that being a parent of a child with SEND can bring up some unique challenges, and we think we’ve addressed quite a few of them. We hope it provides parents with the reassurance and support that they might have been looking for.

Gary Aubin and Stephen Hull have co-written The Parent’s Guide to SEND: Supporting your child with additional needs at home, school and beyond.

Find the one-pager with questions to ask when your child is transitioning to a new school, here.

SEND and the Curriculum and Assessment Review – messages of hope from the interim report

With the release of the Interim Report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review comes the question many teachers, leaders and others will be asking – ‘what does it mean for us and our pupils?’. For those thinking particularly about pupils with SEND, the way forward shows signs of promise, with much work still to do.

Where we are now – high standards, but not for everyone

Few can deny that we currently have a SEND crisis. Though this Review cannot address all of the challenges involved, many acknowledge that the crisis would be eased if every school felt able to deliver a curriculum, manage assessments and provide a qualifications offer that speaks to the pupils in front of them. Where the interim report states ‘young people with SEND make less progress than their peers’, you could take your pick of data points to validate this claim. It’s clear our education system can better serve pupils with SEND.

Good for all, particularly good for pupils with SEND

‘SEND’ is a broad and imperfect term. Yet the principles that support many pupils with SEND can often support all pupils – a broad, balanced and well-sequenced curriculum; a manageable assessment volume; content that prepares pupils for later life and work.

And likewise, the changes indicated by the report reflect changes that might be made for all, but that may disproportionately positively affect pupils with SEND:

Re-evaluating subject and phase curricula so that teachers can spend longer consolidating content, an approach that supports mastery;
Supporting schools to ensure they deliver a broad and balanced offer that includes vocational and arts subjects;
Reimagining post-16 Maths and English delivery for pupils who didn’t get a Grade 4+ at GCSE in year 11, especially for those who achieved lower than Grade 3;
Avoiding multiple Maths and English resits at 16-19;
Considering opportunities to reduce the volume of assessment at KS4;
Ensuring that all curricula that are coherently and logically sequenced, including across the transition from KS2-KS3;
Supporting delivery of depth as well as breadth at KS1 and KS2.

Particularly relevant for SEND

Stakeholders in SEND may also point to other areas of the report that offer glimmers of hope.

They might imagine a system in which young people with SEND see themselves more significantly represented in curriculum materials, ensuring a positive discourse around SEND and challenging ableist thinking.

They might imagine an education system that more clearly values the ‘applied knowledge and skills that will equip (pupils) for later life and work’, speaking to the excellent work already taking place in many settings to prepare pupils with SEND for independent, healthy adult lives ahead.

They might imagine an inclusive assessment system, which sets pupils up to show the best of what they know and what they can do.

The answers aren’t all there yet

As those reading the report will know, there is work still to do, and many complex challenges still to unpick:

How to maintain the rigour of a national testing system, while also improving inclusivity for young people with higher levels of SEND;
How to maintain the curriculum freedoms of the specialist sector, while also supporting high-quality curriculum development across the system;
How to maintain high levels of curriculum ambition for pupils with SEND, including in regard to academic outcomes, while also offering a flexible offer that matches the interests, aspirations and strengths of all pupils.

There is much to continue exploring and learning, and the voices of many stakeholders will continue to be key to the next phase of this work. The opportunity to better serve our pupils with SEND is there for us to take; it’s an opportunity that must not be missed.

Gary Aubin is author of The Lone SENDCO and co-author of The Parent’s Guide to SEND.

Implementing Whole-School Approaches to SEND

SENDCOs are busier than ever. SEND Registers are growing. The number of pupils requiring targeted assessment, close tracking and careful adaptation is rising steadily. Yet some schools are taking these demands in their stride, rising to the challenges it brings. The magic ingredient? A whole-school approach to SEND.

Not just a slogan

It’s all well-and-good to say ‘every teacher is a teacher of SEND’. We know that our statutory frameworks promote (and in some cases, mandate) a whole-school ownership and that there are moral and practical reasons why we all buy into it. It can remain a slogan, though, unless certain aspects run alongside it.

It’s an empty slogan, if the only person accessing any training or support is the SENDCO.

It’s an empty slogan, if colleagues feel unable to make good decisions about how to adapt provision.

It’s an empty slogan, if even one leader in the school feels unable to lead with inclusion at the centre of their work.

The litmus test

Which brings me to the litmus test of a whole-school inclusion. It’s one question, 16 words:

Can good discussions happen about SEND, which move provision forward, when the SENDCO is not there?

This isn’t about undermining the SENDCO. It’s an acknowledgement that the SENDCO can’t be everywhere, and that a school is stronger when its approach moves beyond just ‘do what the SENDCO says’. That might mean a Headteacher, SENDCO or other senior leader asking themselves whether, in their setting:

Senior Leadership Team meetings serve pupils with SEND well, even if the SENDCO isn’t there
Line management meetings confidently address SEND progress and develop provision
Phase or subject meetings ‘get inside’ provision for pupils with SEND and decide what to do more of, learn more about or focus on next term
Learning walks (or other lesson ‘drop-ins’/peer visits) are done by adults who know what good inclusive practice might look like
CPD develops teachers’ and TAs’ inclusive practices

Each of these things can only happen sustainably and frequently if they can happen without the SENDCO needing to be present.

How you might get there

Where the answer is ‘no’ to the above, that might mean some or all of the following:

Sharing priorities around SEND provision with the entire senior leadership team, for a shared understanding, ownership and development of the way SEND is led
Co-developing questions/themes that line managers can discuss with colleagues, that ensure the right focuses are regularly discussed
Working with middle leaders around some of the high-impact work they might focus on – perhaps defining inclusive teaching practice, sharing thoughts on inclusive curriculum choices and exemplifying high-quality relational practices.
Working closely alongside leaders of teaching and learning to ensure the right proxies for inclusion are found on classroom visits.
Scheduling CPD sessions in which teachers and TAs share the things they do well already, building the confidence of all colleagues by showing them what good can look like, in their own setting and with their own pupils.

Looking in the mirror

Of course, we need all our colleagues to be able to access training, support and advice. Some of this will be from a SENDCO, while some might be from external sources. However, we don’t achieve whole-school ownership if we’re talking about SEND as a deeply technical field, far removed from what teachers and leaders know already.

We don’t achieve ‘every teacher as a teacher of SEND’ by just giving out lengthy lists of strategies to cater for different need types and pupils. We don’t achieve ‘every leader as a SEND’ if we’re framing excellence in SEND-practice as being far removed from excellent teaching practice.

We get closer to a whole-school ownership of SEND provision if it feels achievable to all – if we support colleagues to consider the best of what they do through the lens of pupils with SEND. If we support colleagues to consider how building relationships, checking understanding, teaching abstract concepts, modelling a task or embedding routines (and more besides) might particularly support many pupils with SEND, while being broadly useful for all.

Moving beyond a one-person approach

The SENDCO can’t be everywhere. They can’t be in all meetings and classrooms, leading every discussion about SEND provision. They don’t have the capacity.

The SENDCO can’t know everything. They can’t possibly know every subject, phase and classroom as well as a subject specialist, phase leader or full-time classroom teacher.

So a whole-school approach is the only feasible way forward. It’s not only useful for supporting a SENDCO’s workload – it’s essential if we want to do good things for pupils across a school.

Gary Aubin is author of The Lone SENDCO and co-author of The Parent’s Guide to SEND