A Critical Review of a Senco

A critical survey on the persona of the SENCO and dyslexia how this role has been affected and impacted upon by youthful legislation Introduction The BDA Dyslexia golden enlightens Pack for Teachers (2009) provides an over either guide of what dyslexia is and how a dyslexia friendly naturalise should be delivering culture to the dyslexic savant. The writers begin with a definition of dyslexia stating that dyslexia is a education difference, a combination of strengths and weaknesses.This is an informative definition as opposed to the pass of Norwich et al (2005) that exemplary informs should promote an inclusive school system whereby dyslexia is considered b atomic number 18ly non in isolation. The BDA (2009) state that importance ought to be lay on acknowledging dyslexia as a unique(predicate) learning difficulty as a specific learning difference so that statement is inclusive and digestes on all learners rather than just the dyslexic learner who whitethorn already feel both(prenominal)thing is wrong with them.However, I stress that this general definition is simplistic and I agree with Reid that there should be a working/ operative definition. Reids definition of dyslexia is more(prenominal) informative in that respect may be visual and phonologic difficulties and there is usually virtually discrepancy in performances in varied stadiums of learning. It is all-important(a) that the individual differences and learning styles are declare since these will affect out tot ups of judging and learning. (p. 4-5, Reid, 2003).The BDA (2009) conclude to secure BDA Quality tick off status, LEAs and their associated schools must(prenominal)(prenominal) encourage and identify outstanding practice in followers and improving access to education for all learners. I feel that formulation a dyslexia friendly school has the effect of improving the learning of non just the dyslexic learner just new(prenominal) pupils as hygienic. fit in to S nowling et al (2011), dyslexia is seen to be a deficit in phonological skills which, in turn, compromises the power to learn the graphemeph onenessme mappings that underpin competence in an alphabetical system.Snowling et als (2011) research underpins the kinic definition of dyslexia that it is a specific reading difficulty whereby literacy under achievement is apparent and fall below the accepted level given the intelligence of the learner. This study is important it goes beyond recounting dyslexia at the behavioural level (i. e. incorrect recite and reading) to taking into consideration weaknesses at the cognitive level that explicate the functional problems (Morton & Frith, 1995).Dyslexic learners allow deficits in three linked but dissimilar areas of phonological processing phonological awareness (the ability to attend to and manipulate sounds in words) phonological memory (memory for speech-based information likewise referred to as verbal memory) and appointment (provid ing the spoken label for a visual referent). (Vellutino et al. , 2004). Consequently, recent definitions of dyslexia have put away the pauperism for literacy to be appreciably below general aptitude, and have interpreted a widely accepted view of dyslexia with phonological processing as a core deficit (Lyon, Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2003). ContextThe context in which I am employed is a teentsy main(prenominal)stream one-form entry Church of England automatic aid original school. The school is situated in a deprived inside city area in the London borough of Lewisham where 25% of the 225 barbarianren on pealing from Nursery through to Year 6 are eligible for innocent School Meals. This is substantially higher than 2006 national somas of 16% of all primary school tikeren receiving Free School Meals (FSM). The number of squirtren currently place as having a modified Educational Need is 47, or 20. 8% of the get along school population which is slightly higher than 2005 nati onal figures of 18%.The figure of 1. 7% is the number of conduct ( circumscribed Educational involve and Disabilities) children who have a contestation of finical Educational Need lower than national figures of 3% and the detainder of the SEND population comprises overwhelmingly of children on School work Plus (78% 67. 5% represented by boys and 32. 5% represented by girls) and approximately 8% of SEND children on School Action. The largest identified area of special take away in the school falls under SLCN ( dustup, row and Communication Need ) as forradness out in the SEN commandment of place 2001 where 61% of SEND children have a medical diagnosing of receptive and/or xpressive language difficulty, followed by 21% of SEND children with a medical diagnosis of and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Other types of need are blasts Syndrome ( 2%), Aperts Syndrome (2%), Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties SEBD (6%), Dyslexia (2%) and more more a exhaustivel y deal than non literacy difficulties which are under investigation for potential specific causes (6%). These of necessity are justifiable as they have been recognised and identified as much(prenominal) by relevantly qualified and immaterial agencies or are in the process of being more specifically identified .A critical review of the role of the SENCO The role of the SENCo has developed through government policy and tole swanne signifi sewert changes in the past decade with the introduction of the statutory SEN economy of convention 2001 which states that the role of the SENCo includes identifying and placing pupils in need of special educational provision on a calibrated system, liaising with parents and other professionals in regards to children with SEND and advising and supporting other practitioners in the field amongst other responsibilities.This was largely interpreted as a co-ordinating role whereby teaching Assistants ( in at least 36% of schools ) were employ ed in this capacity and contributed to disparities in provision nationally as wellspring as a divergence of roles. In 2009 new government regulations and amendments to the SEN figure of practice session 2001 required SENCos to be qualified teachers and for those teachers new to the role to undergo compulsory readying in the form of the National Award of SEN Coordination.The 2006 foretoken of Commons Education and Skills admit committee give out on SEN distinctly defines the role of the SENCo as a strategical leader, and recommended that SENCos should in all cases be qualified teachers and in a senior management position in the school as recommended in the SEN economy of habituate. (Recommendation 84) Statutory and regulatory frame whole kit and caboodle and relevant phylogenesiss at national and topical anaesthetic level The SEN Code of Practice 2001 remains the statutory legislation governing SEN practice and provision.The 2001 Code of Practice replaces the 1994 Code of Practice, although it retains much of the original counseling, but takes into account developments in education since 1994 and includes new obligations introduced by the SEN and check Act 2001. The 2001 Code of Practice promotes a more consistent approach to meeting the inescapably of children with SEN and focuses on preventative work and early identification as well as ontogenesis strong partnerships mingled with parents, schools, local authorities, health and fond service and voluntary organisations.The school Special Educational Needs and Disability policy is largely based on the SEN Code of Practice 2001 and incorporates elements of the statutory Disability secretion Act 2005, as well as local authority guidance of national policy, much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as the Lewisham school consummation & school action plus guidance 2010. The school policy empowerly states A child is deemed to have special educational involve when they are seen to have importa ntly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of their age group, or have a disability which significantly hinders their use of educational facilities.When such difficulties or disabilities persistently demand the planning of educational provision different from that of the rest of the separate, the child is placed on the Special Needs and Disabilities Profile. This is a confidential list of children for whom extra support may be inevitable and whose come out will be monitored by the class teacher and comprehension manager. ( Rose & Lyle, 2011, p1) Some elements of the SEN Code of Practice 2001 framework are guidance, whilst others must be observed.This includes ensuring liaison with parents and other professional in respect to children with SEN, ensuring that undivided Education Plans (IEPs) are in place and that relevant information or so individual children with SEN is collated, recorded and updated. The Code ensures that schools and local authorities must disse ct their practice and provision for children with SEN and that they are accountable by law e. g. crack full access to a broad, balanced and relevant education.The Code of Practice emphasises the advanced of a child with SEN to access mainstream education through the development of provision in such sets to meet a wide spectrum of SEN (COP 2001, 752-763) that may overlap in the categories of communication and fundamental interaction, cognition and learning, behaviour, excited and social development and sensory and/or physical needs. The provision provided may complicate well-differentiated Quality First training (Edwards 2010), intervention programmes including withdrawal from lass, specializer teaching or therapy or attending ( full or part sequence ) at a specialist setting. nipperren are to be identified as early as possible and their needs met through a graduated approach within the schools own resources ( School Action), redundant support from external agencies ( Sc hool Action Plus ), or if hap is inadequate and further support from the Local authority is required, a Statement of Special Educational Needs may be issued.As I ready this essay, I have identified a number of key tensions in my particular school Whilst class teachers in my school accept, in pact with the National Curriculum Inclusion Statement 1999, that they must respond to childrens diverse learning needs and overcome potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and groups of pupils, including those with SEND, there has been a lack of clarity over the center of the endpoint inclusion and with whom the overall business of children on the SEND account lies.This is just now surprising as there is little consensus on the precise meaning of inclusion at national levels OFSTED tend to view inclusion as minimising inequalities for groups of children eg. including those with SEND, on FSM, gender, race or science whilst teachers primarily regard inclusion chie fly in terms of individuals with SEND ( NASUWT Report 2008, p. 17 ) and their right to be included in a mainstream classroom and how to best achieve this.Increasingly, I favour a model which allows individual children whether SEND, English as an Additional Language (EAL) or non-SEND to access an education which best meets their needs based as much as possible within the mainstream classroom but through withdrawing children for specialist 11 or small group teaching depending on their needs and the gaps in their knowledge carnal knowledge to their peers and age- associate expectations.The non-statutory Removing Barriers for Achievement (2004) highlights that all teachers not just the SENCO or Inclusion Manager are responsible for teaching children with SEND. This also includes communicating the message to class teachers that they are often best placed to initially notice difficulties a child may be having and by making certain referral forms forthcoming to them, thereby actively engaging them in jointly taking responsibility for SEND or potential SEND children in their classes.The Every Child Matters (2004) agenda is currently not statutory and is now being re-drafted as Every Child Achieves in a new White Paper, although the v original outcomes remain. The 5 outcomes are to stay safe, to be healthy, to enjoy and achieve, to marque a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being. The focus for schools not only has to be upon ensuring that all lag are aware of the 5 outcomes, but also on the impact and gird made towards the 5 outcomes by all pupils and individuals within vulnerable groups, such as children with Special Educational Needs.Such agendas which sit alongside other requirements on class teachers to also focus on group outcomes such as groups of children attaining age related expectations hence creates pulls in opposing directions as to the levels of attainment a child is achieving and the best outcome for that child or competing rathe r than complementary agendas. There is a lack of clarity as to whether educational policy is come to with normalisation and conformity, or genuinely values diversity and difference (NASUWT Report 2008, p. 18 ). This tension is a theme which continues in the form of narrowing the gaps between groups and accelerated progress.In the case of children with Speech and Language difficulties or dyslexic tendencies, these terms appear contradictory and oxymoronic as typically such children need reinforcement and over learning compared to their peers operating at age-related expectations. It is herculean to see how such children can make the requisite amount of progress as measured by national age-related attainment standards ( and making a minimum of 2 sub levels progress a year ) as opposed to progress as measured against their individual areas of weakness and specific difficulties.Measured this latter way, their progress may well be excellent although a system of levels and sub-levels may fail to be sensitive enough to graph this progress. I am therefore examining ways such as mental synthesis in pre- and post intervention screening for relevant children and considering using Assessing Pupils get ahead (APP) Speaking and Listening levels in addition to National Curriculum levels in Reading, Writing and Maths to more sensitively measure progress.The contribution of blanket(a) services, such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health run (CAMHS), Educational Psychology, Family advantages, and Early Intervention Services to improve outcomes for children as set out in ECM(2004) is welcomed, although it is hard to measure the impact and the progress that this may have for a number of reasons in changing quantify, it is at times difficult to keep abreast of developments and changes to services offered and their accessibility various services may have a varying level of impact on different children and their families not all parents are receptive and some positively r esistant to accepting referrals to certain services there can be a diffusion of responsibility once various agencies are involved. As a SENCo, one would encounter all of these barriers and find that developing proficient working, collaborative and supportive relationships with all representatives of extended services that a SENCo works closely with as well as parents is the best way forward and ensuring that communication channels are maintained.This has to be carefully weighed against issues of data security and confidentiality by ensuring for example that Common Assessment Frameworks (CAFs) are raised earlier information is shared between agencies and that all sensitive information is stored in a safe location to which only a SENCo and the Headteacher have access. However, to change class teachers to better(p) catch the needs of children that a SENCo teaches on a daily basis, the SENCo would ensure that all class teachers are provided with relevant reports from external age ncies and that these are use appropriately to inform planning and provision for a child within both a classroom and wider school setting.High incidence of SEN and dyslexia how they can affect pupils participation and learning and strategies to remove barriers to learning Baroness Warnock is quoted SEN has come to be the name of a single category, and the government uses it as if it is the analogous problem to include a child in a wheelchair and a child with Aspergers, and that is conspicuously untrue (The Guardian, Tuesday January 31, 2006). Indeed, the 2006 House of Commons Select Committee Report on Special Educational Needs acknowledges that children exist on a broad continuum of needs and learning styles but do not fit into neat categories of different sorts of children those with and without SEN.The category of SEN is an arbitrary distinction that leads to put on classifications and, it can be argued that, this is what is causing the high levels of conflict and frustration with all those involved. (p. 36) This has often been my experience when discussing the progress of various pupils on the SEND register with senior leadership who frequently use the terminology SEND and non-SEND. I am of the opinion that this is a blanket term which does little to understand the true record of individual childrens difficulties and how best to address these. OFSTED equivalence of groups engenders such an approach and is not sensitive enough to the variation between individuals.In the case of my school, it appears that the group almost at risk of underachieving is higher ability girls with no SEN With an emphasis on the social context of special educational needs, Removing Barriers to Achievement (2004, p. 8,) states Difficulties in learning often arise from an unsuitable environs inappropriate grouping of pupils, inflexible teaching styles, or inaccessible programme as much from individual childrens physical, sensory or cognitive impairments. Children emotion al and mental health needs may also have a significant impact on their ability to make the most of the opportunities in school, as may family circumstances. These considerations, combined with evidence that there is a link between social deprivation and SEN nationally as well as underachievement nationally and social deprivation, can make identification of SEN knobbed in my school, especially at School Action Level for example, is a child making poor progress in reading and report because of difficulties such as potential dyslexia, or through poor parenting and a lack of exposure to books at home? Or both? Should the child be on the SEND register and is he/she underachieving? In such cases, assessment and targeted intervention at the specific area of weakness can athletic supporter differentiate between a range of possible factors, but it may not always be so clear cut. What is clear is that these difficulties need to be addressed to minimise the long-range term cause on such a childs development and to help them succeed in the future.This can involve working very closely, and in partnership with parents in order to create a sustainable and longer term solution. The OFSTED Special Educational Needs and Disability Review 2010 piece that the term Special Educational Needs was too widely used with up 50% of schools visited using low attainment and slow progress as the key indicators of a special educational need, with in some cases, very little further assessment. According to the report, 50% of all pupils identified for School Action would not be identified as such if, schools focussed on improving teaching and learning for all, with individual goals for good (p. 3). This suggested a culture of underachievement repayable to low pupil expectations and poor mainstream teaching provision.It also found that pupils identified as having special educational needs were disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds and achieved less well than their peers in terms of attainment and progress over time. Parents were keen to have their children formally recognised as having special educational needs in order to ensure special support for their child. The calibre of the additional support from within or immaterial the school was not found to be good by inspectors. homework was often not appropriate or of good enough quality and did not lead to better outcomes for the child. The review found that no one model or setting of special needs provision worked better than another.The key findings included improving the quality of assessment, improving teaching at an early stage to avoid additional provision at a later stage, ensuring that schools do not over-identify children as having special educational needs when better Quality First Teaching was required, ensuring that additional support was trenchant and developing specialist provision and services. A result of such findings and the implications for my school have been 1. A reduction in t he number of children placed on School Action either by not being placed on the SEND register, or by being removed from it. In many cases, identified labels were behavioural.There is evidence that good class teacher behaviour management, combined with periodical visits from a pupil referral unit outreach worker, as well as a Learning Mentor, has helped to remove some emotional barriers to some childrens learning. However, definitions of behavioural difficulty can still remain unclear as this can be a fluid and congress term dependent on the setting of a class and the nature and frequency of behavioural challenge and hence vary nationally as well as within a school. Children remaining on school action are largely children with ongoing literacy difficulties, whose difficulties are being examined more specifically as suspected dyslexia. 2.Improved training for Teaching Assistants who are often the staff working closely with children identified with SEND. This has included in-house training and attendance on specific courses as well as reaching a minimum standard in Maths and English. Time factors and competing demands on Teaching Assistants time however are considerable constraints and hinder the impact that this training may have. The school now employs a NumbersCounts maths specialist. The impact of this specialist teaching needs greater time to develop to measure its potency although I do not feel that curriculum sub-levels may necessarily be the best way to measure this impact for certain children. 3.A focus on Quality First teaching so that all staff educate, share and promote practical and achievable ways for every class teacher to adopt strategies as a field of daily go that are inclusive to children with Speech and Language difficulties and dyslexic tendencies to embed this in a culture of good general practice and reduce the potential for children to be classified as SEN when underachievement is the issue and provide a good learning environment for all children including those with SEN. The Code of Practice (2001) outlines four main areas of need cognition and learning, behaviour, emotional and social development needs, communication and interaction and sensory and/or physical needs. Compared to national 2006 figures ( DfES Special Educational Needs in England, January 2006. SFR23/2006), our school has a far higher incidence of Speech and Language difficulties including dyslexia ( 61% of the SEND egister ) ASD ( 21%) than the national figures ( 14. 3% and 2. 4% respectively ) but a much lower incidence of BESD ( 6% to 26. 5% nationally ). Part of the reason may be recent school investment in enhanced Speech and Language Service from the NHS, where the school together with 4 other local schools, funds weekly Speech and Language therapist time. This has lead to a high rate of referrals, which has led to a higher rate of detection. This picture is not every bit spread however the investment in Speech and Language, althoug h justifiable as such difficulties impede access to many parts of the curriculum, comes at a cost to other categories of SEND as identified by the Code of Practice.Other childrens need are not always met quickly ( sometimes more than 2 terms ) despite early identification due to lengthy waiting times for assessments with low level, high incidence learning difficulties such as dyslexia having low priority in the hierarchy of indispensability . There are only 2 Specialist Teachers qualified to formally diagnose dyslexia provided by the Lewisham Inclusion Service to support the needs of children in mainstream settings whose time is shared between 92 schools in the borough. This means that specialist provision increasingly needs to be provided within the school setting and is dependent of current staff levels of expertise.This can create variability in the quality of provision for children with SEN across schools in the same locality. In harmony with the Equalities Act 2010 and Specia l Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001), schools must make reasonable adjustments for children with SEN and disabilities to access testing that does not discriminate against them on the basis of their disability or special need. A learner with a Statement of Special Educational Needs automatically qualifies for up to 25% additional time in order to complete testing in Reading, Writing and Mathematics at the end of KS2 however changes in the criteria for honour Statements of SEN in Lewisham have amounted to fewer statements being issued and financial savings for the authority.A diagnosis of dyslexia would not however result in additional time if the learner does not have a Statement unless considerable additional authentication is provided. The use of a scribe, transcript, technology such as a laptop computer or reader however for a dyslexic learner is arbitrary upon a schools assessment of the learners need in order to access the tests and can be easily arranged. It is at least reasonable for Qualifications and Curriculum phylogeny Agency (QCDA) guidelines to permit such measures as scribes or laptops to remove potential barriers to performance for children with certain types of need under formal examination conditions to access the knowledge held by children who may not best be able to demonstrate in scripted form.In conclusion, whilst various governmental policies have aimed to improve the outcomes for children with SEND, there are difficulties some unforeseen between the principles set out and the translation of these into practice, with gaps and variations on local and national levels. We await the forthcoming new legislation around SEND and the implications that this will have on the ever-developing role of the SENCo forging a strategic path to best meet the needs Special Educational and differently of families and children within a tighter resource framework. References Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. DfEE 581/2001 November 20 01 QCA Curriculum guidelines for learners with learning difficulty and special arrangements during Key Stage 2 tests 2012Special Educational Needs and Disabilty Act 2001 What Equality law means for you as an education provider schools. Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2010 Removing Barriers to Achievement The Governments Strategy for SEN. DfES/0118/2004. 2004 National Inclusion Statement, 1999 Every Child Matters Change for children (2004) Special Educational Needs and Inclusion Reflection and Renewal, NASUWT Report, 2008 House of Commons Select Committee Report on Special Educational Needs, HMSO, 2006 Inclusion Development ProgrammeTeaching and supporting pupils with dyslexia. www. nasentraining. org. uk/resources/dyslexia-idp-materials/ The Special Educational Needs and Disability Review.Ofsted, 2010 The SENCO survival guide the nuts and bolts of everything you need to know Edwards, Sylvia National tie beam for Special Educational Needs (Great Britain) E-boo, Routledge, 201 0, 1st edition Inclusion Does it matter where pupils are taught? Ofsted, 2006 Lewisham Local Education Authority publications School Action/School Action Plus guidance criteria (2010) Inclusion debate treads new ground, The Guardian, Tuesday 31, 2006 Hallett, F & Hallett, G (2010). Transforming the Role of the SENCO Achieving the National Award for SEN Coordination Open University Press Special Educational Needs and Disability Policy, Rose and Lyle, 2011