SEND: improving teacher skills, final report
Research Report DFE-RR115
Evaluation of impact of DfE investment in initiatives designed to improve teacher workforce skills
in relation to SEN and disabilities
Geoff Lindsay1, Mairi Ann Cullen1, Stephen Cullen1, Julie Dockrell2, Steve
Strand1, Elisabeth Arweck1, Seamus Hegarty1 and Susan Goodlad3
1CEDAR, University of Warwick,
2 Psychology and Human Development, Institute of Education, University of
London,
3Centre for Education and Industry, University of Warwick,
This research report was commissioned before the new UK Government took
office on 11 May 2010. As a result the content may not reflect current Government policy and may make reference to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (Dcsf) which has now been replaced by the Department
for Education (DFE).
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Department for Education.
Contents
Acknowledgements 5
Executive Summary 6
1. Introduction 16
1.1 Purpose of the study 16
1.2 Background 17
1.3 The Study 22
1.4 Methods 23
1.5 Plan of the report 24
2. Initial Teacher Training 25
2.1 Introduction 25
2.2 The Tda Training Toolkit on SEND 26
2.2.1 Undergraduate primary and secondary ITT 26
2.2.2 Postgraduate ITT 29
2.2.3 The student perspective 30
2.3 Professional Dialogue Material 33
2.4 Extended placements in special schools and specialist provision 34
2.4.1 Taking up the special placement opportunity 34
2.4.2 School feedback 35
2.4.3 Hei tutors’ perceptions of the value of special placements 36
2.4.4 Arrangements for 2010-11 cohort 37
2.4.5 Sustainability 37
2.4.6 Postgraduate ITT and placements 38
2.4.7 The student perspective 38
2.5 Regional ITT tutor SEND cluster groups 42
2.6 The Inclusion Development Programme (Idp) 42
2.7 Overview 42
3. The Inclusion Development Programme - Dissemination 45
3.1 Introduction 45
3.2 The dissemination of the Idp 46
3.2.1 LA activity in the academic year 2010-11 47
3.2.2 School engagement with the Idp 50
3.3 Schools’ reasons for engaging with the Idp modules 53
3.4 Approaches to Cpd around the Idp 56
4. The Inclusion Development Programme - Impact 61
4.1 Introduction 61
4.2 The impact of the Idp – quantitative findings 61
4.2.1 Teacher Voice survey 61
4.2.2 Our surveys 64
4.2.3 National Strategies 68
4.3 The impact of the Idp – qualitative findings 69
4.3.1 Impact on school staff and teaching practice – the LA
perspective
4.3.2 Impact on teaching and learning – the schools’ perspective 72
4.3.3 Impact on pupil outcomes 75
4.3.4 Impact on parental confidence 77
4.4 Benefits to LAs 79
4.5 Sustainability 80
4.6 Summary of key points 81
5. Stammering Information Programme 84
5.1 Introduction 84
5.2 Means of access 85
5.3 Use of the Sip 85
5.4 The quality of the Sip material 86
5.5 Conclusions 88
6. Specialist Qualifications 89
6.1 Introduction 90
6.2 Mandatory qualifications funded place scheme for specialist teachers of pupils with sensory impairment
6.2.1 Introduction 90
6.2.2 Providers’ views 92
6.2.3 Student views 96
6.3 The special educational needs coordinator 101
6.4 Conclusions 103
7. Discussion and Conclusions 105
7.1 The implications of our results for government policy 105
7.2 Conclusions 109
References 110
Appendix 1 - Methodology 112
Appendix 2 – Composite school reports of impact of Idp modules 116
Appendix 3 - 10 school case studies of the Idp in practice 124
Appendix 4 – Examples of pupil, parent and class teacher voice 135
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the local authority staff, teachers and parents who
contributed to this study. We are also grateful to the project Steering Group and to
the four international experts who commented upon the Stammering Information
Programme.
Additional contributions were made by Martin Desforges, Anne Sheppard (Cedar)
and Dimitra Hartas (Warwick Institute of Education).
Executive Summary
This is the Final Report of a study to evaluate the take up and impact of investment
by the Department for Education (DfE) in a number of initiatives, addressing both
initial teacher training and the continuing professional development of teachers,
designed to improve teacher workforce skills in relation to special educational needs
and disabilities (SEND). The evaluation was conducted over the period January
2009 to March 2011.
Main findings
• Taken together, these initiatives represent a possibly unique comprehensive
approach to improving the knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviour, and
confidence of the teacher workforce in relation to special educational needs
and disability.
• The materials to support trainee teachers and those in practice have been
welcomed and found to be effective.
• The dissemination methods have been effective and have produced a
substantial platform for further dissemination.
• Taken as a whole, our evidence provides support for the proposed initiatives
to develop teacher training and continuing professional development set out
in the recent Green Paper.
Background
The two main developments examined in our evaluation were the SEND Training
Toolkit developed by the Training and Development Agency for Schools (Tda) for
students in initial teacher training and the Inclusion Development Programme (Idp)
developed by the National Strategies for teachers in practice. Each comprised the
development of materials and had a planned national dissemination strategy with
phased implementation. The Tda Toolkit was made available to providers of primary
undergraduate courses in initial teacher training (ITT) in higher education institutions
(HEIs) in Phase 1 (2008-09), followed by materials in 2009-10 for providers of
secondary undergraduate courses and for providers of the Pgce primary/secondary
in 2010-11. Phase 1 of the Idp (2008-09) comprised two sets of Continuing
Professional Development (Cpd) materials focusing on speech, language and
communication needs and on dyslexia respectively. Materials for supporting pupils
on the autism spectrum (2009-10) and with behavioural, emotional and social
difficulties (2010-11) then followed and were disseminated in Phases 2 and 3.
There were further initiatives within the programme designed ultimately to improve
the achievement and well-being of pupils with SEND, including the Stammering
Information Programme, extended placements for trainee teachers in special schools
or specialist provision in mainstream schools, and the funding of experienced
teachers to undertake a mandatory qualification for specialist teachers of pupils with
sensory impairment. In addition, the government introduced regulations to require
SENCOs to be qualified teachers and to undertake mandatory training. The Tda
developed a national framework for this training, approved training providers to offer
it and funded SENCOs new to the role to undertake the training from 2009;
evaluation of these initiatives has been arranged separately by the Tda.
Together these initiatives add up to an innovative and challenging programme of
work which represents a comprehensive attempt to enhance the knowledge, skills,
and confidence of the teacher workforce nationally, through both initial teacher
training and Cpd. The strategy of developing the Idp as both a SEND and school
improvement issue had the potential to avoid its marginalization as ‘only’ about pupils
with SEND, to bring school leaders into the initiative and also to embed SEND as
central to whole school development.
The end of our evaluation coincides with the publication of the Green Paper1. We
therefore report our findings and make recommendations relative to this indication of
future government policy.
Methods
This was a multi-faceted initiative examining the take up and impact of a number of
developments in initial teacher training (ITT) and post-qualification continuing
professional development (Cpd). These were designed to improve teachers’
knowledge, skills and confidence in order to support children with SEN and disability.
The ITT developments and those concerning the Inclusion Development Programme
1 DfE (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability. A Consultation. Cm8027. Norwich: The Stationery Office.
for Cpd comprised data collection in each of the three years of the project. These
drew upon independent samples for the questionnaires but repeated interviews
wherever possible, plus additional interviews with interviewees new to the initiative as
it progressed. The Stammering Information Programme (Sip) and Mandatory
Qualification (Mq) studies took place in the final year of the study.
The evaluation findings are based on analysis of data from a total of 429 interviews,
8321 respondents to surveys, plus data on 3617 teachers attending Idp training.
Initial Teacher Training
• 104 interviews were held with providers of primary undergraduate initial
teacher training (ITT) over the three years; 10 with secondary undergraduate
providers over years 2 and 3; and 22 with postgraduate providers in year 3.
Online surveys with ITT students provided data from 1255 undergraduate
trainees over the three years, plus 352 postgraduate trainees in 2011.
Local authorities and schools
• A sample of 30 LAs was selected to reflect a cross section of all LAs.
Interviews were held with key staff over the three years of the study to
investigate the development of the Idp implementation.
• 80 interviews were held with Idp leads in each LA, with most leads being
interviewed during each of the three years.
• 184 interviews were held with school staff from 28 schools drawn from these
LAs over the three years: 58 SENCOs, 40 head teachers or senior staff
leaders, 45 experienced teachers, and 41 newly qualified teachers (NQTs).
• 29 parents of children with SEND were interviewed.
• Online surveys of NQTs provided data from a total of 2832 NQTs over the
three years.
• In addition, data from 2174 teachers were provided through the autumn 2010
Teacher Voice survey of a national panel of teachers.
• Pre- and post Idp training self assessments were provided by LAs through
the National Strategies for 3617 teachers.
Stammering Information Programme (Sip)
• 565 professionals who had received training with the Sip responded to an
online survey. Most (415) were speech and language therapists with the other
respondents working in education, mainly teachers but also tutors in Higher
Education Institutions.
• Four international experts provided assessment of the Sip
Mandatory Qualifications for specialist teachers of pupils with sensory impairment
• 9 of the 10 course leaders were interviewed during 2010-11 with additional
information from a survey of 50 teachers enrolled on the courses.
Detailed findings
Initial teacher training
The Training Toolkit on SEND
• ITT tutors have incorporated material from the Toolkit into their teaching
materials for SEND and found it a very valuable and flexible resource.
o Over 9 out of 10 found it ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in enhancing a
range of trainees’ knowledge, skills and understanding around SEND.
• Trainees rated the teaching on SEND they had received as significantly more
effective and felt more prepared to teach pupils with SEND if their course had
incorporated the Toolkit.
The extended placements in specialist settings
• Extended placements in special schools and specialist settings were highly
popular and valued by trainees, tutors and schools.
• 9 out of 10 trainees from cohorts of trainees that had undertaken a placement
rated the effectiveness of different elements ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’ in
each of the three years.
• Trainees who had undertaken a placement:
o were more likely to consider a career in a special school or
mainstream school with a specialist unit or resource base.
o rated the teaching of SEND on their course more highly and felt better
prepared to teach pupils with SEND than those who had not had a
placement.
Cluster groups
• The cluster groups were highly valued by tutors as a means of supporting the
development of SEND across the sector.
The Inclusion Development Programme
National leadership and support
• The tiered support at national, regional and local level was a key factor in the
successful roll out of the Idp.
• The role of the National Strategies in leading the Idp dissemination was
effective in supporting the alignment of SEND and school improvement work
at LA level and added ‘clout’ to the initiative in terms of engaging schools.
• Teething problems with the early versions of the dyslexia and Slcn materials
were addressed and ‘refreshed’ versions were launched in early 2011. The
autism spectrum materials were particularly well regarded.
Role of the SEN regional hubs
• The hub Idp strand meetings were a strength of the national dissemination
model.
• The key benefits of the Idp strand regional hub meetings were the impetus
they gave to the initiative, the opportunity to focus on the Idp, for LA leads to
meet with others from outside their own LA, to share resources and ideas
(including via hub websites), to share experiences and ways of disseminating
the materials to schools, and to provide a forum for educational professionals
to learn from each other.
Role of Idp lead in each LA
• Each LA having a lead person responsible for the delivery of the Idp
facilitated dissemination.
• The Interim Report2 identified different models of dissemination and that LAs
varied in options selected. LAs learned from their dissemination approaches
as the roll out proceeded.
• The degree of alignment between SEND/inclusion and school improvement
varied at strategic planning level and in operational delivery to schools.
2 Lindsay, G., Cullen, M.A.., Cullen, S., Dockrell, J.E., Goodlad, S., & Arweck, E. (2010). Evaluation of impact of DfE investment in initiatives designed to improve teacher workforce skills in relation to SEN and disabilities 1st Interim Report. London: DfE. http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR058.pdf
Impact
• Evidence for the early impact of the Idp was presented in the Interim Report.
• Awareness of and engagement with the Idp continued to increase over the
project: by November 2010 six out of 10 teachers nationally were aware of
the Idp: 66% of primary and 49% of secondary teachers.
• Three quarters of SENCOs had attended LA training on the Idp.
• Between 70% (dyslexia) and 84% (autism spectrum) judged training effective.
• SENCOs reported that the Idp Cpd had promoted discussion of pupils’
teaching and learning needs (96% SENCOs), improved teachers’ knowledge
(94%), improved teachers’ empathy with pupils’ having barriers to learning
(90%), and benefited the learning of targeted pupils (89%).
• Between two thirds and three quarters of teachers judged that the Idp
materials had improved their knowledge, understanding and confidence to
teach pupils with dyslexia, Slcn, As and Besd.
• 9 out of 10 SENCOs reported that Idp training had led to improvements in
pupils’ learning.
• Newly qualified teachers were more confident to support pupils with SEND if
they had received Idp training.
Sustainability
• The majority of LA leads have devised strategies to sustain and develop the
gains made by the Idp.
• Keeping the materials under review, with revisions as appropriate, was a key
factor in ensuring that the benefits to date were maintained and developed.
Mandatory qualification funding scheme
• The scheme was designed to address a shortage of specialist teachers of
pupils with sensory impairment and the problems of an aging demographic,
indicating greater shortages in the future.
• The scheme provided for 188 places at 10 courses training specialist
teachers of hearing impaired, visually impaired or multisensory impaired
pupils.
• Without the scheme, two thirds of the students would not have trained.
• The scheme was successful in attracting ‘new blood’ and maintaining
standards of entry.
• It ran efficiently and was very positively rated by students.
o 98% judged their course effective or very effective
o Practical activities and academic level were positively rated by 92%
and 94% respectively.
Stammering Information Programme (Sip)
• The Michael Palin Centre successfully developed a Dvd and materials to
raise awareness of stammering among the teaching workforce.
• 97% of speech and language therapists (SLTs) who had used the Dvd
considered that the Sip had changed teachers’ understanding of children who
stammer.
• Almost all the teachers (98%) and SLTs (97%) rated the Sip well presented,
readily accessible, informative about children who stammer and relevant to
classroom practice.
• Independent international experts were unanimous in endorsing its value.
Special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs)
• 99% of schools have a SENCO
• The SENCO is a qualified teacher in 98% of primary schools but in only 87 –
94% of secondary schools (7% of secondary teachers reported ‘no’ but 7%
‘don’t know’).
• The SENCO is a member of the senior management/leadership team in 76%
of primary schools but only 29% of secondary schools.
Implications for policy
In this section we consider the implications of our evaluation of this programme of
initiatives for future government policy, indicated by the recent Green Paper3.
Increasing support for all ITT trainees
• Our evidence shows that the Tda Toolkit on SEND is an effective resource to
support the initial training of teachers. It can, and is being embedded within
providers’ programmes.
• The Toolkit should be maintained and reviewed/revised periodically as
necessary to ensure it is kept up to date.
3 DfE (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability. A Consultation. Cm8027. Norwich: The Stationery Office.
• Tutors value cluster meetings to facilitate collaborative developments and
enhance their own development. These should continue, organised locally.
Increasing trainee teachers’ awareness of special schools
• Our evidence supports the Green Paper proposal (para 3.11) to provide
additional funding for ITT providers to secure a greater number of placements
in special school settings for trainee teachers.
• This should also be available for placements in specialist settings within
mainstream schools to reflect the range of provision available.
Increasing continuing professional development for teachers
• Our evidence supports the Green Paper proposal (para 3.13) for continued
availability of the materials for pupils with dyslexia, speech language and
communication needs, behavioural emotional and social difficulties, and those
on the autism spectrum.
• The proposal to commission online training materials for teachers about
profound, multiple learning disabilities, severe learning disabilities, and
complex learning difficulties and disabilities extends the current resource. We
recommend that the new materials should be piloted before dissemination.
• The Stammering Information Programme dissemination has also been very
successful and this should continue to be made available; an online version
should be considered.
• Our evidence also indicates the importance of effective dissemination: without
this, high quality resources cannot be used effectively. We recommend the
successful strategy used for the Idp dissemination: national, regional and
local leadership and coordination. In the absence of previous organisations,
schools and LAs will need to construct local systems to meet their own
circumstances, needs and priorities.
Higher level specialist qualifications
• Our evidence supports the funding of training of specialist teachers (para
3.14). The current scheme for teachers of pupils with sensory impairment is
successful; extension to pupils with other SEND is also justified:
o Our evidence suggests that without funding to support the training,
most teachers will not apply.
Teacher network and Training Schools
• Our research shows the importance of effective systems to support training
and Cpd. Networks and leadership within SEND are crucial to create self-
supporting partnerships between schools, meeting local needs by voluntary
collegial engagement.
SEND and leadership
• Our evidence shows the importance of SEND being regarded as central to a
school’s development. The Green Paper proposals (para 3.20-22) regarding a
network of Teaching Schools, appropriate coverage of SEND issues in the
National Professional Qualification for Headship, and the development of
National and Local Leaders of Education are all appropriate developments in
tune with our findings.
Special educational needs coordinators
• Our research has shown that not all SENCOs are qualified teachers.
• Furthermore, SENCOs are part of the senior management/leadership teams
in only 76% of primary and 29% of secondary schools.
• Action has been taken to address the former issue and also to require all
newly appointed SENCOs to undertake nationally approved training for SEN
coordination (paras 3.24-24). These requirements should help to raise the
expertise and status of SENCOs and, as a consequence, make it more likely
that they are actively engaged in schools at a senior level.
Teaching assistants
• Our evidence shows that head teachers value their TAs’ knowledge of SEND
highly. The Green Paper proposal (para 3.27) for a fund to support further
training in SEND will build upon this.
Pupil attainment
• Improved teacher training (initial and Cpd) is a prerequisite to improving pupil
outcomes, both their attainment and well-being. Our evidence indicates that
the DfE initiatives were having a positive effect and so supports the
investment in the Green Paper proposals.
Conclusions
This multi-faceted government initiative is possibly unique. It provided a
comprehensive programme of support to improve the attitudes, knowledge, skills,
confidence and behaviour of teachers with the aim of improving outcomes for pupils
with SEND. There are, of course, other factors including appropriate curricula and
facilities, parental confidence and support; but teachers are fundamental to improving
pupil outcomes. Our research has provided extensive evidence that the initiative has
been successful.
The Green Paper sets out the government’s direction of travel. It presents a
comprehensive statement of intended policy developments together with specific
proposals. As the Green Paper notes, the life chances of children and young people
in England who are identified as having special educational needs or are disabled
are disproportionately poor. The importance of effective initial teacher training and
continuing professional development are fundamental to the delivery of optimal
education to improve the attainment and well-being of pupils with SEND. Our
research provides substantial evidence to support these proposals and also indicates
how they might best be implemented.
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the study
This is the Final Report of a study to evaluate the impact of investment by the
Department for Children, Schools and Families, now the Department for Education
(DfE)4 to improve teacher workforce skills in relation to special educational needs
and disabilities (SEND). The evaluation was carried out between December 2008
and March 2011.
The initiative was set up by the previous government but our findings must be
considered in the context of the present government’s plans for supporting pupils
with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Fundamental to this is the
Green Paper Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs
and disability5 (DfE, 2011). This is a wide ranging consultation paper addressing the
whole SEND system. Within it are specific references to government proposals for
supporting teachers to provide optimal support for pupils with SEND.
In this Introduction we describe the purpose and background to the study, moving on
to the current context as our findings contribute to further developments indicated by
the present government’s Green Paper.
The DfE initiative had a number of different strands, comprising support to both
practising teachers and those undertaking initial teacher training (ITT). The support
provided to teachers and trainees was intended to address two different but
interacting agendas: meeting the needs of pupils with SEND and school
improvement. The focus was on a universal provision of support to all teachers as
every teacher encounters pupils with SEND and has responsibility to meet their
needs. Also known as ‘Wave 1’ or ‘Quality First’ teaching and provision6, the support
was intended to provide essential basic information and to help develop skills and
confidence across the whole teaching force. This in turn would improve the
4 The Department for Education was created by the present government in May 2010. Future reference will be to the present title: DfE 5 http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Green-Paper-SEN.pdf 6 See page 20 for definition of the waves.
attainment and well-being of pupils with SEND and increase their families’ confidence
in the special educational needs (SEN) system.
We have presented evidence from our research up to July 2010 in the Interim Report
(Lindsay et al., 2010). The purpose of this Final Report is two-fold: to present the
results of the project as a whole and to explore the development over time as the
different parts of the overall initiative were rolled out nationally. We examine both the
process of rolling out this major initiative and also its effectiveness. We then explore
the implications for policy and practice in the future.
1.2 Background
Meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND presents many
challenges to any education system. All children share common needs, for example
to be safe, to be loved and cared for. Some children have needs that are shared by
groups of pupils who have similar developmental difficulties, for example those with a
profound hearing impairment. Finally, every child is an individual and has unique
needs. Meeting pupils’ needs, therefore, requires consideration of all three factors.
Furthermore, recent research has shown that there is both heterogeneity within
categories of SEN and overlap of child characteristics between categories. For
example, the Better Communication Research Programme7 includes a prospective
longitudinal study which is investigating this phenomenon among children identified
as having either specific language impairment or Asd. The use of categories such as
dyslexia and Asd can be useful in providing indications of a pupil’s needs but there
is a lack of one-to-one correspondence between such a categorisation and a child’s
needs as a whole. The needs of children within SEN categories are not identical;
furthermore, children in different categories may share common needs. For example,
children with a wide range of SEN associated with language difficulties (e.g. hearing
impaired, Asd and Slcn) as well as those with specific learning difficulties, have
literacy difficulties including writing. As Dockrell (2009) argues, a cognitive model of
the writing process is needed, rather than the category or diagnosis in order to
address their needs.
7 http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/go/bettercommunication
The report by Ofsted (2010) raised more fundamental questions. This challenged
whether all pupils categorised as having special educational needs should be so
categorised. Ofsted argued that the prevalence of pupils reported to have SEN varied
across local authorities (LAs) and was inflated. They recommended that ‘Schools
should stop identifying pupils as having special educational needs when they simply
need better teaching and pastoral support,’ (p.13). Other reviews have raised
questions about the quality of provision made for pupils with SEND, for example the
Bercow Review (2008) for pupils with speech, language and communication needs
(Slcn) and the report by the Lamb Inquiry (2009; Peacey et al., 2010) into parental
confidence in the SEN system.
There is increasing evidence (Ofsted 2006; Lindsay, 2007) that quality of provision is
the key issue, not, for example, the type of provision whether mainstream, special
school or specialist provision within mainstream (integrated resources and units).
Quality refers to several factors including appropriate resources and the nature of the
environment. For example, Shield and Dockrell (2008) have demonstrated the effects
of noise on the performance of pupils with SEN. The key factors, however, concern
what is taught and how. The former relates to curriculum appropriateness, the match
between a pupil’s current level of development and readiness to proceed to the next
stage. The latter concerns pedagogy, how the teacher actively engages with the pupil
and teaches in a way that produces effective learning (Norwich and Lewis, 2004).
The overall approach to curriculum content has been subject to government policy,
particularly since the Education Reform Act 1988 which laid down a national
curriculum. Various changes have taken place over the years. The national
curriculum and the more recent literacy and numeracy strategies have provided firm
guidance in curricular content and teaching methods but these approaches have
been ‘top down’ requirements from central government. Ultimately the teacher has
responsibility for decisions made for a particular child at any one time, as well as the
appropriate method of teaching within the school’s policies.
The Green Paper recognises the importance of teachers stating that, ‘International
evidence shows that the most important factor in effective school systems is the
quality of teachers and teaching’ and that, ‘For those children that face the greatest
educational challenges, high quality teachers trained to support pupils with a wide
range of SEN will be the most powerful way to drive up attainment’, (para 3.8). If the
needs of pupils with SEN are to be addressed optimally, teachers must have
appropriate and effective initial training and, there must be provision of support for
continuing professional development (Cpd). This raises the question of necessary
experience, for example the requirements for qualified teacher status, and those
experiences that are optional. Increasingly, professions require Cpd as a condition of
the maintaining professional registration. The previous government proposed to
introduce a ‘license to teach’ (Dcsf, 2009), which would be renewable and ‘linked to
a new professional development entitlement for teachers’ (p.12).
Supporting the teaching workforce requires action during initial teacher training (ITT)
and through Cpd. Those undertaking ITT feel uneasy about their levels of
competence in relation to teaching pupils with SEN and so lack confidence. For
example, the Training and Development Agency for Schools (Tda, 2009) reported in
a recent survey that only about half of newly qualified teachers considered that their
initial teacher training was good or very good in preparing them to work with learners
with SEN8. Ofsted (2008) has been critical of the lack of consistency in the quality of
ITT in preparing teachers to raise the achievements of children with learning
difficulties and/or disabilities.
To make progress it is necessary to improve teachers’ knowledge, skills, attitudes,
confidence and behaviour. These are interdependent and require a programme that
builds upon ITT with a sustained, collaborative programme of Cpd. The House of
Commons Select Committee (2006) acknowledged that there was a lack of focus on
SEN during ITT and recommended that ‘SEN training should become a core,
compulsory part of initial teacher training for all teachers’ (para 301). They then
argued that ‘Good quality, appropriate continuing professional development should
be made available for all teachers and schools should be resourced to fund them’
(para 309). In Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES, 2004), the DfE addressed
these issues, including identifying raising expectations and achievements through
developing teachers’ skills and strategies, as one of four key areas for improvements
in meeting the needs of children with SEN and disabilities. An important message
was the need to recognise different levels of skill. As Figure 1.1 shows, the DfES
(2004) proposed that specialist skills were required for some teachers in some
8 49% primary and 56% secondary teachers rated their preparation good or very good, unchanged from 2008.
schools; advanced skills were required for some teachers in all schools; but core
skills were required for all teachers in all schools.
Figure 1.1 Skill requirements to address children’s special educational needs
Source: DfES (2004) Removing Barriers to Achievement, p.56
The three layers of the triangle in Figure 1.1 can be related to the National Strategies’
Three waves of intervention model:
• Wave 1: inclusive teaching for all pupils
• Wave 2: additional interventions to enable children to work at age-related
expectations or above.
• Wave 3: additional, highly personalised interventions9
The three waves are often interpreted as:
• Wave 1: whole class differentiated teaching and learning
• Wave 2: small group interventions
• Wave 3: one to one intervention
The programme of implementation set out by Removing Barriers to Achievement led,
among other initiatives, to the Inclusion Development Programme and, as a result of
collaboration with the Tda, resources for ITT, which are both examined in this report.
9 http://nationalstrategies.standard.dcsf.gov.uk/node/41795 (last accessed 5 April 2011)
In The Children’s Plan (G.B. Parliament. House of Commons, 2007), the Department
for Children, Schools and Families (Dcsf: the predecessor to the DfE) committed to
an investment programme to support improvements in outcomes and provision for
children with SEND, stating that, ‘Government wants to ensure that every child with
SEN gets an education that allows them to achieve their full potential’ (p78). The
government sought to strengthen the position of the SENCO which led to nationally
accredited training arrangements and a statutory requirement that the SENCO must
be a qualified teacher. The development of the higher level teaching assistant
(Hlta) qualification, introduced in 2003, was also designed to raise standards. Other
initiatives included Achievement for All with £31 million funding which is being
implemented in about 450 schools (2009-11) by the National Strategies and the
National College for School Leadership as delivery partners to the DfE. This seeks to
improve the achievement and progress of pupils with SEND, to improve wider
outcomes and also to improve the engagement of their parents with the school. It is
focussing on three strands: assessment tracking and intervention, structured
conversations with parents and provision for developing wider outcomes. Initial
findings are encouraging, suggesting that AfA has been taken up enthusiastically by
schools (Humphreys and Squires, 2010).
In addition, £18 million was allocated for several initiatives including the investment
programme that is the focus of this report, namely:
• support for the Training and Development Agency for Schools (Tda) and
others to improve initial teacher training and continuing professional
development;
• further support for the Inclusion Development Programme (Idp), specifically
regarding workforce skills around the teaching and learning of children with
speech, language and communication needs, dyslexia, autism spectrum
disorders and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties.
As a separate, but related, initiative, in April 2008 the Dcsf announced funding of
£340 000 over three years for the Michael Palin Centre (www.stammeringcentre.org)
to develop the Stammering Information Programme to provide schools across
England with information, advice and training materials on how best to support pupils
who stammer.
To summarise, we report the findings of one major initiative set up under the previous
government and continued by the present government when it came to power in
2010. It was a complex, multi-faceted initiative with various strands. Fundamentally, it
was an ambitious project to support the development of the teaching workforce, both
those in initial teacher training and those already qualified. In the next section we
describe the content of the government’s programme of interventions designed to
improve teacher workforce skills in relation to SEND. We then summarise briefly the
methods used in the research and the plan of the report.
1.3 The Study
Our study investigated a number of initiatives designed to improve the initial training
and continuing professional development of teachers with respect to pupils with SEN
and disabilities (SEND).
1. Initial teacher training (ITT)
The following initiatives were planned to be carried out under the direction of
the Training and Development Agency for Schools (Tda).
• The roll out, from September 2008, of new study units on SEN and
disability, developed for providers of primary undergraduate teacher
training10;
• The roll out, from September 2009, of similar materials for providers of
secondary undergraduate courses and, from January 2010, providers
of the Pgce primary/secondary;
• The publication in 2010 of Professional Dialogue support material;
• Support for extended placements for trainee teachers in special
schools or other specialist provision;
• Publication of guidance and exemplar material, designed to
strengthen and reinforce the experience acquired by newly qualified
teachers during their induction period;
• The introduction of resources to support consistency of assessment
when institutions are assessing trainee teachers against the SEN and
disability elements of the Professional Standards for qualified teacher
status (Qts);
10 http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/sen-and-disability/sen-training-resources.aspx
• New electronic and other facilities to help tutors network effectively;
• The introduction, from September 2009, of DfE funded places on
mandatory qualification courses for specialist teachers of children with
sensory impairments.
2. Inclusion Development Programme (Idp)
The Idp was carried out under the direction of the National Strategies:
• The Idp training materials for continuing professional development
(Cpd), designed to bolster the knowledge, skills and confidence of
serving teachers and other staff, were commissioned and
disseminated by the National Strategies. Phase 1 (2008-09) focused
on children with speech, language and communication needs (Slcn)
and those with dyslexia; Phase 2 (2009-10) focused on children on the
autism spectrum and Phase 3 (2010-11) on behavioural, emotional
and social difficulties (Besd). The Slcn and dyslexia materials were
refreshed and re-released in February 2011.
• Support provided for the embedding of Idp through DfE-funded SEN
regional hubs across England and Idp DfE-funded Pathfinder activity
in selected LAs involving specialist voluntary sector organisations.
3. Stammering Information Programme
The Michael Palin Centre for Stammering Children received a grant to
develop and disseminate a Stammering Information Programme.
1.4 Methods
A summary is provided here. Information was gathered mainly by surveys and
interviews – see Appendix 1 for a full description.
Initial Teacher Training
• 104 Interviews were held with providers of primary undergraduate initial
teacher training (ITT) over the three years; 10 with secondary undergraduate
providers over years 2 and 3; and 22 with postgraduate providers in year 3.
Online surveys with ITT students provided data from 1255 undergraduate
trainees over the three years, plus 352 postgraduate trainees in 2011.
Local authorities and schools
• A sample of 30 LAs was selected to reflect a cross section of all LAs.
Interviews were held with key staff over the three years of the study to
investigate the development of the Idp implementation.
• 80 interviews were held with Idp leads in each LA, with most leads being
interviewed during each of the three years.
• 184 interviews were held with school staff from 28 schools drawn from these
LAs over the three years: 58 SENCOs, 40 head teachers or senior staff
leaders, 45 experienced teachers, and 41 newly qualified teachers (NQTs).
• Online surveys of NQTs provided data from a total of 2832 NQTs over the
three years.
• In addition, in Autumn 2010 data from 2174 teachers were provided through
the Teacher Voice survey of a national panel of teachers.
• Pre- and post Idp training self assessments were provided by LAs through
the National Strategies for 3617 teachers.
Stammering Information Programme (Sip)
• 565 professionals who had received training with the Sip responded to an
online survey. Most (415) were speech and language therapists with the other
respondents working in education, mainly teachers but also tutors in Higher
Education Institutions.
• Four international experts provided assessment of the Sip
Mandatory Qualifications for specialist teachers of pupils with sensory impairment
• 9 of the 10 course leaders were interviewed during 2010-11 with additional
information from a survey of 50 teachers enrolled on the courses.
1.5 Plan of the report
The findings concerning the ITT initiatives are presented in Section 2 with the
findings concerning the Inclusion Development Programme in Section 3 and the
Stammering Information Programme discussed in Section 4. Section 5 presents a
discussion of the research overall and conclusions within the context of the Green
Paper (DfE, 2011).
2. Initial Teacher Training
Main findings
• The Tda Toolkit on SEND was highly valued by both tutors and trainees.
• About three quarters of trainees rated the Toolkit as effective or very effective
for developing their knowledge, skills and understanding
• Extended placements in special schools were highly popular with trainees,
tutors and schools.
o Between 94-99% of trainees rated the exposure to a range of
opportunities ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.
• Trainees that had experienced an extended placement rated their taught
sessions more highly and felt better prepared to teach pupils with SEN.
2.1 Introduction
Two major initiatives designed to support ITT were rolled out from 2008-11: the Tda
Toolkit11 comprising new study units on SEND, and the extended placement of
students in special schools and other specialist provision. The SEND Toolkit was
produced by Peacey and his colleagues at the Institute of Education, London, and
published by the Training and Development Agency for Schools (Tda). It was
piloted before being rolled out first to primary (2008-09), then to secondary (2009-10)
undergraduate providers of ITT and, finally, to postgraduate providers of ITT, both
Hei and employment based, from the spring term of 2010. The postgraduate
providers included Higher Education Institutions (Hei) Postgraduate Certificate in
Education (Pgce), School Centred Initial Teacher Training (Scitt), and Graduate
Teacher Programme (Gtp) providers. The pilot phase enabled improvements to be
made before it went ‘live’, a very successful strategy.
Materials for undergraduate courses were available to download free and comprised
18 sessions. The first six sessions address inclusive education, including planning
and assessment of the curriculum and removing barriers for disabled students. Key
aspects of the Disability Discrimination Act are also covered. The next six sessions
focus on specific needs related to: cognition and learning, dyslexia, speech language
11http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/sen-and-disability/sen-training- resources.aspx
and communication, autistic spectrum disorder, and behavioural emotional and social
difficulties. The final six sessions address the development of an inclusive
environment, management of groups and working in partnership with parent/carers,
other adults, pupils and outside agencies. The Toolkit, therefore, has a broader range
than the Inclusion Development Programme (Section 3). During 2010, the Tda
launched a version of its Toolkit on SEND for postgraduate ITT providers. This
consists of two taught sessions, self-study tasks, a series of subject-specific
booklets, and a personal learning task. The different elements of the package were
designed to be used flexibly to suit the needs of individual postgraduate ITT
programmes and trainees.
The extended placement initiative for undergraduate primary and secondary ITT was
intended to provide trainees with firsthand experience of pupils with SEND and
especially the specialist provision that is available. Funding was provided for 10
placements of four weeks per course. By contrast, postgraduate ITT providers did not
receive funding for specialist extended placements. Guidance for implementation
was provided by the Tda.
In this section we explore tutors’ views of the Toolkit, focusing on its content, format,
value and impact and, in addition, review tutors’ and trainees’ views of the value and
impact of the special placements. Finally, we report on an additional Tda resource
introduced in spring 2010 – the Professional Dialogue Material – and on Hei use of
the school-focused Inclusion Development Programme (Idp).
We draw primarily on interviews carried out in autumn term 2010, and in January,
2011 with the relevant staff offering Initial Teacher Training (ITT) with Qualified
Teacher Status (Qts) and the final survey of trainees. In each case we build upon
the interviews and surveys conducted in the two previous years (2008-09, 2009-10)
and reported in the Interim Report (Lindsay et al, 2010) - see Appendix 1 for details.
2.2 The Tda Training Toolkit on SEND
2.2.1 Undergraduate primary and secondary ITT
The Toolkit continued to be used extensively across all the HEIs interviewed, with the
‘mix and match’ approach being the predominant model of incorporation with tutors’
existing work. For example, in one Hei, the Toolkit was incorporated in a variety of
ways: the students had access to all the materials, there were support lectures,
paired student activities, and the students finished their use of the material with an
assessed assignment and a case study. The Toolkit continues to be used, therefore,
as a resource and a benchmark for modules and programme audits and still
provides, as one tutor put it, the ‘backbone of sessions’. In a minority of cases,
extensive work had been done with the Toolkit to make it a faculty-wide resource that
was accessed by all ITT tutors (See Box 2.1).
Box 2.1 Embedding the Toolkit as a tutor resource
‘What we did was have a team away-day in June, because there’s so much good practice in all of those things, we thought it seemed crazy to kind of pigeonhole it. We essentially took about 15 – 20 of our academic staff away for a day, and I invited five or six partner colleagues, some of which were specifically special schools, and some of which weren’t. So we literally went through every Dvd, every pen drive, every piece, and we’ve put together a tutor resource, for use on undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, where we’ve looked at everything the Tda have sent to us, and put together in a way that it’s sort of level-specific, if you can imagine. So, if you’re a tutor, and you’re doing a Teaching Studies module at level 5, and have been asked to look at an SEN inclusion thread, this is something that you can pick up, and instead of having to sort of plough through all of the Tda material, and other materials, it identifies, you know, use this CD-ROM, this case study, or this particular lesson within the undergraduate Primary materials. So it’s not specific. So we’re advising, maybe, a tutor on an undergraduate programme, level 5, why not dip into the undergraduate Secondary one, and try this little case study.’ Tutor
This embedded model was shared with other HEIs in their regional cluster group.
Similar, though perhaps less comprehensive, processes had also been undertaken at
other HEIs.
Value of the Toolkit
The overwhelming view of the interviewees was that the Toolkit was, in terms of its
content and format, a very valuable and flexible resource (See Box 2.2). This
confirmed our Interim Report findings when 9 out of 10 tutors judged the Toolkit
effective.
Box 2.2 Tutors’ views on the content and format of the Toolkit
‘I think the content is very comprehensive and the case studies are also very good as well, very useful, and sometimes the case studies are complementing some of the outside agencies we bring in as well, so trainees can consolidate some of the practice in sessions with some of the resources and the materials […] the content is absolutely fine, I don’t have any issues with it.’ Tutor ‘I think it is very well thought out and very comprehensive, and I like the fact that the things are available on a memory stick and the actual disks are there as well, and you can navigate your way through the disks very easily’. Tutor
In reflecting on the overall value of the Toolkit, the tutors’ views were that it had been
helpful for a number of reasons: flexibility, usefulness for both SEND specialists and
generalists, that it was a valuable staff development tool, and an important resource
for SEND education (See Box 2.3). The Toolkit helped to address the need to
develop knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour and, in so doing, to increase
confidence.
Box 2.3 Tutors’ views on the value of the Toolkit
‘I’ve thoroughly enjoyed using the materials, and gained from them as well. I mean, it [SEND] is an area of interest of mine, but it [the Toolkit] has added to my knowledge, and confidence as well, in covering a huge variety of different aspects.’ Tutor ‘I think it’s really helpful for staff development. […] it gives you a really good starting point and […] it’s good back-up and […] we’ve kept quite a lot of the learning objectives within the sessions themselves and think [they] are useful and valid, so even though we don’t always use the materials, quite often the learning objectives will look very much the same.’ Tutor
Future use
Regarding the future use of the Toolkit in ITT programmes, all the tutors commented
that the use of the Toolkit would continue in some way or other, in the light of module
and course evaluations and the outcome of the trainee and Nqt surveys they had
undertaken.
There was a clear desire, on the part of most tutors, to see the Toolkit being updated
in line with current case studies, current practice and research, and current initiatives.
This call was particularly strong from tutors who were not SEND specialists (See Box
2.4).
Box 2.4 Future updates for the Toolkit
‘I think it’s important for it to keep doing the updates, bearing in mind all the different changes that are going through and publications that come out so I would hope that they can keep reviewing it so that it is really up to date. That’s one of the key things; that’s something I find very hard, particularly because SEN isn’t my only area, and it isn’t naturally my specialism, so I have to work very hard at keeping up to date with it so I think it’s really important if they can keep looking at it and making sure that it does reflect changes, particularly any changes that are coming through in the near future from the government.’ Tutor
In addition, a small number of tutors thought that the remit of the Toolkit could be
extended to include gifted and talented education. One tutor stressed the need to
include material focused on teaching and learning for pupils with Severe Learning
Difficulties (Sld) and Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (Pmld):
‘as the Salt Review points out that 25% of children with Sld and Pmld are
now in mainstream so there is a clear need. I know they represent, in terms of
the whole SEN spectrum, the sharp end, but, nevertheless, students are
going to come across these children’12.
2.2.2 Postgraduate ITT
All the postgraduate ITT providers interviewed made use of the Toolkit, in specific
ways in order to fit it with their respective ITT programmes. Just as the different
elements in the Toolkit package are designed to be used flexibly, the interviewees
reported flexible approaches in the way the Toolkit is used in their ITT programmes.
All the tutors stated that the Toolkit had extended the development of their
programmes, supplemented, reinforced or enhanced it. Most tutors indicated that
their use of the Toolkit materials would remain under review, as particular aspects
could be developed further although time presented limitations.
In terms of employment based (Scitt and Gtp) teacher training provision, the five
tutor interviewees here welcomed the Toolkit as providing a valuable resource, with
employment based teacher trainees having elements of the Toolkit embedded in their
individual training plans. One interviewee explained how the Toolkit was integrated
into the training for the students, utilising a mix of centre-based teaching and
learning, e-provision, and individual support, while another explained how trainees
worked in groups on elements of the Toolkit (See Box 2.5).
12 The Green Paper proposes to fund the Tda to produce such support.
Box 2.5 Employment based ITT and the Toolkit
‘So, in spring term 2010, […] the centre based training has already taken place. We looked at the study tasks, the individual studies of the different kinds of disability, and our Advanced Skills Teacher colleague worked out, she selected, and said to the trainees, “right, you’ll do at least six of these. You can do more. You need to sit down with your school-based trainers, and have a look at the whole thing”. We also made them [the Toolkit resources] available on our e-blackboard, grid for learning.’ Tutor ‘What I do is, is that I get the students working in groups of five usually on a particular activity, with all the handouts that go with it. And they work it through, and discuss it, and so on, and they then give a presentation back to the rest of the whole cohort on what their particular area was looking at. So it saves everybody having to do everything, then, because … some of them then specialise … you know, will know something very well, because they were part of that group, and the others will have a summary from the others.‘ Tutor
The future of the postgraduate Toolkit
Overall the format and content of the Toolkit were rated positively. Most ITT tutors
saw the future of the Tda Toolkit in terms of how it might continue to be used in their
particular programmes. They saw this continued engagement as a process of
reviewing and then refining what they had started to embed as well as expanding the
Toolkit’s application to other areas (See Box 2.6). The in-built flexibility would support
such processes.
Box 2.6 The future of the postgraduate Toolkit
‘I like the flexibility, so I would like to see the flexibility maintained. I would like to see the Toolkit available more online and with me able to download bits of it and to use the elements that I want to use.’ Tutor ‘I want this material available, there’s some fantastic stuff in it, I want the self-directed study kits to be available to my students as they launch their careers so available on the Tda website in an easily accessible format so that it’s an ongoing resource for them and I think that’s really, really valuable.’ Tutor
2.2.3 The student perspective
The 2010-11 cohort of undergraduate students (n = 490) rated the effectiveness of
their taught sessions on inclusive diversity and SEND positively as shown in Table
2.1. The postgraduates were also positive but less so overall. The students rated as
particularly effective their sessions on SEND duties, framework and regulation, the
concept of inclusion and the implications of inclusion for curriculum planning and
delivery. Their ratings for teaching and theoretical models of disability and of early
identification and assessment of SEND, were also rated positively overall, but to a
lesser extent. A one-way Anova comparison indicates there were significant
differences between the three years for the undergraduates (2010-11 was the first
year that postgraduates were involved). In all cases Bonferroni post hoc tests
indicate that there was a significant improvement (p < .05) in ratings between the first
two years whereas there were no significant differences between the 2009-10 and
2010-11 cohorts’ ratings.13
Table 2.1 Effectiveness in enhancing knowledge, skills and understanding:
% undergraduate (postgraduate) respondents
Not at all
effective
Not very effective
Effective Very effective SEND duties, frameworks and legislation
2 (2) 16 (13) 58 (64) 24 (22)
The concept of inclusion
.2 (0) 1 (6) 33 (41) 65 (53)
The implications of inclusion for curriculum planning and delivery
.7 (.3) 6 (13) 44 (45) 50 (42)
Theoretical models of disability
4 (8) 30 (32) 47 (49) 19 (11)
Early identification and assessment of SEND
5 (9) 27 (34) 48 (43) 20 (14)
Undergraduate: N = 443-456; Postgraduate N = 320-343 are in parentheses Only 30 per cent of the 2010-11 cohort were aware of the Toolkit and only 58 per
cent of those reported that the materials had been incorporated into their course.
This may reflect the tutors’ strategy of incorporating parts of the Toolkit into different
elements of the course rather than clearly identifying the Toolkit per se. Students who
reported that the Toolkit had been incorporated were shown by independent samples
t-tests to give significantly higher ratings of effectiveness for teaching on SEND
duties, framework and legislation (p < .001), the concept of inclusion (p = .04) and
theoretical model of disability (p = .015).
Similar results were found when students’ ratings of effectiveness of taught sessions
on areas of special education needs were examined. Ratings for the 2010-11
undergraduate cohort were all positively skewed (Table 2.2) from 70% positive for
13 The latter survey took place earlier as our evaluation was due to end in March 2011.
partnership with parents of pupils with SEND to the highest rated, working with other
adults in the class (e.g. teaching assistants: 86% positive). The postgraduate mean
ratings were also positive but were consistently less so.
Table 2.2 Effectiveness in enhancing knowledge, skills and understanding about areas of need set out in SEN Code of Practice: % undergraduate (postgraduate) respondents
Not at all
effective
Not very effective
Effective Very effective
Cognition and learning
2 (7) 16 (21) 58 (54) 24 (18)
Dyslexia
2 (9) 16 (33) 49 (45) 33 (13) Speech, Language, Communication Needs (Slcn)
3 (8)
25 (33) 50 (47) 22 (12)
Autistic Spectrum Disorder (Asd)
4 (9) 21 (36) 50 (46) 26 (9) Behavioural, Emotional, Social Difficulties (Besd)
2 (5) 19 (29) 52 (50) 27 (16)
Planning for pupils with SEND
2 (4) 14 (20) 55 (55) 28 (21) Making adjustments to teaching and learning for pupils with SEND
2 (4) 11 (17) 53 (56) 33 (23)
Removing barriers to learning for pupils with SEND
2 (4) 13 (18) 52 (58) 34 (20)
Setting appropriate targets for pupils with SEND
2 (5) 24 (28) 50 (51) 24 (16)
Tracking progress of pupils with SEND
4 (6) 28 (32) 50 (50) 18 (13)
Partnership with parents of pupils with SEND
5 (9) 25 (40) 48 (41) 22 (10)
Working with other adults in the class (e.g. Teaching Assistants)
2 (4) 12 (18) 58 (55) 29 (23)
Partnership with outside agencies / specialists
5 (9) 25 (34) 49 (47) 22 (10)
Undergraduate: N = 442-458; Postgraduate: N= 326-341 are in parentheses
There were significant differences on a one-way Anova between the cohorts’
ratings of effectiveness for five of the topics. Figure 2.1 shows the changes of mean
scores over the three years; all means are above 2.5, the average on the 1-4 scale
for effectiveness, indicating positive judgement. In most cases Bonferroni post hoc
tests show that the main improvement was seen between the first and second years,
with a nonsignificant difference between 2009-10 and 2010-1114. The exception was
for teaching on Asd where the largest improvement was between the first two years
but this was followed by a smaller but significant reduction between 2009-10 and
2010-11.
Figure 2.1 Changes in students’ ratings of effectiveness of taught sessions
over the three years.
2.3 Professional Dialogue Material
In 2010, the Tda introduced resources aimed at supporting professional
conversations among ITT tutors, trainees and school mentors (there is also a version
for Nqt induction) around inclusive teaching and learning for all pupils. This consists
of ‘tools’ headed: ‘Pillars of Inclusion’, ‘Film Clips’, School self-audit tool’, ‘lesson
observation tool’; ‘activities called ‘preparing lessons’ and ‘school systems for
tracking pupil progress’. These can be found in the 'Further Support …' section at the
foot of the webpage at http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/sen-and-
disability/sen-training-resources.aspx (last accessed 28.2.11)
14 The latter survey took place earlier as our evaluation was due to end in March 2011.
Very few of the tutors interviewed were aware of the professional dialogue material.
Typically, the Cedar contact e-mail was the first time that most tutors had heard of
the material. Only one had used the materials, delivering it to students for final year
secondary teacher trainees in a conference day focused on ‘Inclusive Physical
Education’. A couple of tutors were aware of the ‘pillars of inclusion’, but were not
sure whether they were part of that set of materials. Nonetheless, having been made
aware of the material, there was a clear intention to incorporate it into SEND teaching
in future. For example, one tutor noted,
‘’Now what I am going to do now that I know about the eight pillars, for
example, is that I need to make the tutors on the secondary programmes,
both undergraduate and postgraduate, more aware of this information so that
they can direct their students to look at it, and that SEN inclusion isn’t just the
remit of the SEN team […] but that it is a sort of grass roots approach’.
2.4 Extended placements in special schools and specialist provision
Over 2008-2010, the Tda funded up to 10 undergraduate ITT trainees per provider
on 4-week placements in a special school or in specialist provision within mainstream
schools (units/resourced provision). This was not offered to postgraduate ITT
providers; instead, we asked if trainees had the opportunity to go on placement in a
special school or resourced provision in a mainstream school.
2.4.1 Taking up the special placement opportunity
With two exceptions, all Hei providers of undergraduate ITT offered the special
placements. The universal feeling of tutors in relation to the special placements was
that they had been very successful, and were highly valued. There were a small
number of issues that arose in relation to the special placements. These included
concern, among secondary ITT providers, that students had to be careful that, taking
these placements, they still met their subject knowledge requirements for Qts.
Nonetheless, tutors were aware of this potential pitfall and responded appropriately.
The popularity and success of the special placements in previous years (Lindsay et
al, 2010) had increased student demand for these placements, for example, one Hei
had 41 student applicants for 16 places on the special placement, which had
provided an additional impetus for the development of selection criteria for students
wishing to undertake the placements. The selection of trainees also ensured that
trainees of the right calibre went on placement.
The special placements were extended to cover new settings in a small number of
HEIs. For example, one Hei introduced special placements in secondary school
settings in 2009/10, which included two places for students at a Pupil Referral Unit
(PRU). This was a result of petitioning from the two students in question.
Student feedback
All the tutors whose institutions offered special placements reported that the
feedback from trainees was ‘very positive’, ‘very, very positive’, ‘overwhelmingly
positive’, and that ‘the students love it’ (See Box 2.7).
Box 2.7 Student feedback on special placements
‘I’ve got students’ feedback here – “It’s important that everyone does a minimum of four weeks”; “I’m more confident”; “I can see now see that SEN is an integral part of teaching”; “I’ve learnt a great deal, I’m very interested”; “I’ve seen a different side to teaching in these placements”; “Supportive teachers and peers have helped make me become a better teacher, I can see the difference in myself”.’ Tutor ‘The feedback is tremendous. In fact I do a post-[placement] evaluation and I’ve just written my module report for the annual review and I included the feedback. They can’t speak highly enough of it. They find it extremely challenging and the challenge for us next year will be that we would like to offer it to all [trainees on the programme]. They learn so much.’ Tutor ‘I think they’ve had a huge impact on the people that have taken part in them and I think that it’s a lasting impact. They were very changed as professionals. I think it was quite remarkable and it was significant the impact that it had on the people that… I’m looking at the evaluation forms now and they couldn’t speak highly enough of the experience.’ Tutor
2.4.2 School feedback
Of the tutors whose institutions offered special placements, the overwhelming view
was that the trainees were ‘extremely well received’ by the schools and that the
schools appreciated having the trainees there, because a) they could see trainees’
commitment and realised that they had been well prepared, b) they felt included in
teacher training (having felt like ‘a poor relation’ in that regard before) and, c) it
helped them with staff recruitment. In four cases, special schools contributed to
trainees’ skills by providing additional training before they went on placement. In
another case, the head teacher of a special school was involved in the selection
process of the trainees on the programme, so enriching the institution’s provision
through that particular expertise. In two other cases, teachers from the special
schools provided guest practitioners’ lectures at the university, which, again, enriched
provision for trainees, gave special school teachers a voice on the teaching
programme and promoted their own professional development (See Box 2.8).
Box 2.8 Special placement schools’ feedback
‘I notice in some respects the greater impact with the school. […] what really humbles me is the reception from the schools because they’re saying “we are missing generations of teachers in our special schools” […] and we certainly have people who are graduating and moving straight into special schools to work. Round about 5% of the course each year.’ Tutor ‘The schools once again were delighted to be involved, because they were excited and happy that they could be involved in teacher training and they particularly would like to develop the links further and even think about how they could support trainees if they do go on actual graded attachments in special schools.’ Tutor
The tutors also pointed out that great care was taken to ensure that the links with the
partnership schools were strong (and were kept strong) and that the placements
were refined in dialogue with the schools. Some providers introduced ‘partnership
training sessions’ for this purpose, which gave schools the opportunity to meet
university staff and discuss their requirements and what might work best within their
settings.
2.4.3 Hei tutors’ perceptions of the value of special placements
All the tutors whose institutions offered special placements placed a very high value
on the placements. Their comments included statements such as: ‘I think they are
hugely valuable’; ‘They’re excellent, they really enhance the provision’; ‘the whole
thing, I can’t praise it enough; the impact on our students has been phenomenal’.
The placements were given such high value as a result of the benefits which accrued
for everyone involved in them. The trainees benefited from the placements, gaining a
range of professional skills and a more comprehensive perspective of inclusion.
Feedback by special placement students to their wider student cohort also further
disseminated learning related to SEND (Box 2.9, ‘Wider impact of the special
placement experience’). Further, as only a small minority of students undertaking the
special placements had indicated that they intended to follow a special education
focused career (although this, too, was seen to be a new benefit), it was expected
that the impact of the placements would lead to a positive spinoff in mainstream
settings.
Box 2.9 Wider impact of the special placement experience
‘In our schools in [the county] and surrounding areas there’s a diverse range of children in mainstream and I think therefore we’ve got to be better at preparing them for that and this helps some if they’re ready to move their knowledge and practise even further. I firmly believe, and the associate tutors who come into work with the Year 3 ITT students, are really demonstrating what effective practice is. The principles of what they’re doing certainly can be applied in mainstream. I think the report from the link tutors from last year’s final placement is that we’re beginning to impact on mainstream practice by these students.’ Tutor ‘It’s hugely significant for those who have been on them, both in terms of what they’ve learnt about special educational needs education in special schools, and also the transferability to the roles of mainstream teachers. It can’t be underestimated.’ Tutor
In addition, valued links had been built between HEIs and special schools, thereby
enhancing ITT provision in a mutually beneficial fashion.
2.4.4 Arrangements for 2010/2011 cohort
When interviewed at the beginning of the 2010-11 academic year, a large majority of
the undergraduate ITT tutors, whose institutions offered special placements,
indicated that at least some arrangements had been made for the special
placements. As to the number of places offered, the majority said that the number
would be at a similar level to that of 2009-10. This ranged from 10 to 50; also, at one
university, the whole cohort (of just over 170 trainees) was offered a short three day
visit.
2.4.5 Sustainability
Of the undergraduate ITT tutors whose institutions offered special placements, the
majority stated that the special placements would continue beyond the current
academic year, although a minority expressed this in terms of a hope or intention
(because the commitment was there, but other factors, such as funding and course
restructuring, might affect it). Some tutors indicated that the placement had become
part of their programmes and constituted a major element in their provision, which
reflected the importance attached to SEND issues. In these cases, such as in HEI16,
the special placement was to be fully integrated as an optional, but assessed,
placement into ITT provision.
There was some concern expressed that the loss of additional funding for the special
placements might impact on the ability of tutors to find high quality placements, as,
without funding, the special placement would become ‘just another placement on top
of all the other placements that schools get’.
2.4.6 Postgraduate ITT and placements
Over 2008-2010, the Tda funded up to 10 undergraduate ITT trainees per provider
on 4-week placements in a special school or in specialist provision within mainstream
schools (units/resourced provision). This was not offered to postgraduate ITT
providers; instead, we asked if trainees had the opportunity to go on placement in a
special school or resourced provision in a mainstream school.
Among those interviewed only one postgraduate ITT provider offered a placement in
a special school or specialist provision within mainstream school as part of the
teacher trainees’ formal programme. Of the others most included the opportunity to
visit special schools (or similar settings) for short periods (as a kind of ‘taster
experience’) to at least some of the trainees. One ITT provider had no such provision
in its programme, citing the difficulty of accommodating a large number of trainees in
a limited number of special partnership schools. However, individual teacher trainees
who wished to be placed in special schools would be given that opportunity.
2.4.7 The student perspective
Two thirds of the 2010-11 cohorts (67% undergraduate, 65% postgraduate) were
aware of the opportunity to have an extended placement in a special school or in a
mainstream school with a specialist resource. About a quarter (21% undergraduate,
27% postgraduate) had taken part in an extended placement. Students that had
taken part gave very positive ratings to their placements: between 94-99% rated their
exposure to a range of opportunities either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, in most cases (Table
2.3).
Table 2.3 Opportunities on the extended placement: % undergraduate
(postgraduate) respondents
Very poor
Poor Good Excellent
School inclusion policy 1 (0) 4 (3) 62 (65) 33 (32)
Early identification of areas of SEN 0 (0) 11 (14) 68 (56) 22 (30)
Assessment of pupil needs 0 (0) 3 (7) 57 (56) 40 (38)
Intervention (strategies, resources) 0 (0) 1 (3) 53 (62) 46 (34)
Personalised learning 0 (0) 6 (12) 45 (52) 49 (36)
Setting appropriate targets 0 (0) 4 (10) 52 (56) 43 (34)
Working with other adults (TAs, Teachers) 0 (0) 2 (6) 41 (55) 57 (41)
Working with other specialists (e.g. therapists)
3 (0) 3 (20) 60 (42) 34 (38)
Undergraduate N = 99-100; Postgraduate: N = 352 are in parentheses Undergraduate ratings were positive over all three years. There was a nonsignificant
trend for a slight decline but only three of the eight comparisons showed a
statistically significant reduction in effectiveness ratings (one-way Anova); in all
cases Bonferroni post hoc tests showed that the significant change was between the
first and second years, followed by a levelling off to the third year (2009-10)15. The
three were: school inclusion policy, setting appropriate targets and working with
specialists.
Students’ access to various practical opportunities on the placements was generally
positive, as shown in Table 2.4. Eighty per cent of students who participated on an
extended placement and specialist provision had opportunities to work closely with
pupils with SEND to a great extent but mentoring by a SENCO, access to SEND
resources and materials, a pre-placement briefing, and preparation time were all
rated less positively. Working with a fellow student did not occur at all for a third of
the students. Independent samples t-tests indicated that both the 2010-11
undergraduate and postgraduate students’ learning gave significantly more positive
ratings to all the taught sessions reported in Table 2.1 than students who had not had
this experience.
15 The latter survey took place earlier as our evaluation was due to end in March 2011.
Table 2.4 Structure of the extended placement: % of undergraduate
(postgraduate) respondents
Not at all To a lesser extent
Somewhat Yes, to a
great extent Were you given opportunities to work closely with pupils with SEND?
1 (2) 0 (11) 18 (39) 81 (48)
Did you receive mentoring from the SENCO?
16 (16) 17 (18) 35 (39) 32 (26)
Did you have access to SEND resources and materials?
2 (6) 9 (32) 33 (30) 55 (32)
Did you work with a fellow student? 31 (48) 14 (14) 25 (23) 30 (14)
Did you have a pre-placement briefing?
5 (19) 8 (24) 34 (34) 53 (22)
Did you have preparation time? 1 (14) 18 (20) 35 (46) 46 (21)
Undergraduate: N = 99-100; Postgraduate N = 87-90 are in parentheses
Figure 2.2 Effects of having experienced an extended placement: on students’ ratings of taught sessions A.
Undergraduate students who had experienced an extended placement also gave
significantly higher ratings to the taught sessions on areas of need and practical
aspects of teaching (Figure 2.3). The results for postgraduates had the same trend
but only five sessions showed significant differences: Cognition and learning,
Dyslexia, Slcn, Asd, and working with other adults in the class.
Figure 2.3 Effects of having experienced an extended placements on
students’ rating of taught sessions B.
Independent samples t-tests indicated those undergraduates who had undertaken an
extended placement also felt significantly better prepared to teach pupils with SEN (p
< .001) and were significantly more likely to incorporate into their career plans the
possibility of teaching in a special school (p < .001) or a mainstream school with
specialist provision (p < .001); and to consider qualifying to teach pupils with visual
impairment (p = .009) or hearing impairment (p = .014). These results replicated an
‘extended placement’ effect found previously for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 cohorts.
For postgraduates there were similar trends but the effects were smaller.
Postgraduates who had undertaken an extended placement also felt significantly
better prepared to teach pupils with SEN and to incorporate into their career plans
teaching plans in a mainstream school with a specialist resource (p < .001) but not a
special school. They were also more likely to consider teaching pupils with a hearing
impairment (p = .035) but not a visual impairment.
2.5 Regional ITT tutor SEND cluster groups
To support the use of the Toolkit, during 2008-09 to 2010-11, the Tda funded one
Hei in each of eight regions to lead regular meetings of ITT tutors with a remit around
SEND. The regional cluster groups continued to be highly valued by undergraduate
ITT tutors, and those postgraduate tutors who had attended cluster meetings also
valued them. The groups were seen to be a forum for sharing practice, and an
opportunity to ‘step outside of our own institutions and make active links with others’.
There was uncertainty on the part of the majority of interviewees regarding the future
of the cluster groups beyond March 2011. There was a general hope that the groups
would continue to meet, but it was acknowledged that funding issues may well
prevent this. Nonetheless, in a minority of cases, interviewees reported that clusters
would continue to meet. In those cases where the cluster meetings would not
continue or their future was uncertain, funding was the single determining factor that
tutors cited as the reason why cluster meetings had stopped or might stop. Further,
most of the cluster meetings which expect to continue beyond March had some
financial underpinning to sustain them.
2.6 The Inclusion Development Programme (Idp)16
The Inclusion Development Programme is aimed at mainstream teachers. However,
copies were also sent to all ITT providers to try to ensure that all newly trained
teachers would be aware of the Idp when they began teaching. The majority of the
tutors interviewed said that at least some of the Idp material had been incorporated
in the SEND curriculum of their ITT programmes. All the tutors commented that at
least some of the Idp modules were brought to trainees’ attention in one way or
another (See Box 2.10).
16 More details of the Idp are presented in Section 3.
Box 2.10 The Idp in ITT settings
‘What I did with that was I took the students on line and showed them it. I know that we were sent the DVDs and stuff and the students all have copies of those but I took them online and I asked them to do the online e-learning courses that were on the National Strategies site so they all had to do those and they’ve had some evidence that they’ve completed those and they’ve had to put it in their standards file to evidence standard Q19. They’ve done the one on behaviour, the one on autism and speech, language and communication and dyslexia and they’ve done the early years ones and the primary, secondary ones. So they’ve had a good introduction to that.’ Tutor
The ways in which trainees were made aware of the Idp materials varied across the
providers. In some HEIs, the Idp modules were flagged up in teaching sessions so
that trainees became aware that the modules existed and knew how to access them.
In other HEIs, tutors pointed out that the Idp modules would be included in some
way in specific units or core modules, for example, professional studies, inclusion,
diverse needs.
All the postgraduate ITT tutors stated that the Pgce students were made aware of
the Idp, at least to some extent, in the sense that they were told about the existence
of the materials and how to access them. In some cases, disks were issued to
trainee teachers (where available) or copies made available in the library or given to
trainees who had a specific interest in a particular area or were working on an
assignment. In some cases the material was referred to, and flagged up as a
resource, in subject-related parts of the programme (e.g. Slcn in English) or in
curriculum sessions which covered dyslexia, the autism spectrum, or Besd in a
generic way.
Half (49%) of the 2010-11 cohort of undergraduate students and a third (32%) of the
postgraduate were aware of the Idp: 29 per cent reported that the Idp materials had
been incorporated into their SEND curriculum and a fifth (20%) reported that they
had received Idp materials. Most students in both groups did not know whether the
materials had been incorporated into their curriculum but those that knew this to be
the case were more likely to report that SEN and disability had received a high
priority on their course.
2.7 Overview
There was a universal sense that the entire ITT SEND initiative had been valuable
and valued. The tutors spoke in very positive terms: ‘it’s been a really beneficial
enhancement’, ‘it’s been a useful tool for me as a co-ordinator to develop further’,
‘they’re very useful indeed’, ‘it has reinforced what we were doing’, ‘it really enables
priority to be given to SEN provision within the institution’, ‘they still provide a really
valuable framework’, ‘it’s had a big impact and it complements beautifully the input
trainees have’ in other parts of the programme ‘and very much builds on that’, ‘it’s
made us be much more explicit about focusing on special needs for the students’
(See Box 2.11).
Box 2.11 Overviews of the initiative; ITT tutors’ assessments
‘It’s actually had a huge impact here […] each year what we’ve found is it has a massive impact on the way they [students] think about inclusion, they way they think about special educational needs. That filters through the whole of their year, the whole cohort, because they come back in then and they feed stuff back in. So it’s had a big impact on the students. It’s also had a massive impact on staff. It was one of the things that really contributed to the Ofsted grading of outstanding. SEN now has a really high profile here; people feel that with the Tda money that we’ve got and the materials and all of that it really has to take centre stage in all of our curriculum here. So rather than me being a voice in the wilderness and saying look we need to do more about SEN now the whole Tda project, the money, the visits to the special schools, has become a very very central core to everything that we’re doing on the BEd Degree and the Pgce Degree, so yes it’s been great.’ Tutor ‘To coin a phrase, they did everything that it said on the tin. […] We were part of the pilot and the materials did promise big things and the aims of the project were quite grand, but I honestly do think here at [name of Hei], it’s lived up to all of the expectations. I can’t really criticise anything about the materials or the extended placements, except that I wish that they were mandatory.’ Tutor ‘The school placements were key because up until then there had been a sort of ethos that students could not gain Qts through going into specialist settings. Now we have gradually built up the evidence through the placements that students do gain Qts and experience in their professional development.’ Tutor
3. The Inclusion Development Programme - Dissemination
Main findings
• The Idp was rolled out successfully across the country, with increasing
engagement of teachers over the three years.
o By 2010-11 60% of primary teachers were aware of the Idp
o Over three quarters of SENCOs had received Idp training
• The tiered support at national (National Strategies), regional (SEN Regional
hubs) and local authority (LA Idp leads) was a key factor in this success.
3.1 Introduction
In this section we report on the roll out of the Inclusion Development Programme.
Materials17 for four categories of SEN were commissioned by the National Strategies
who led the programme on behalf of the Dcsf (now DfE). The four categories were
dyslexia and speech, language and communication needs (Slcn), rolled out 2008-
09; autism spectrum (As: 2009-10) and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties
(Besd: 2010-11). The Besd materials, therefore, were being rolled out at the end of
our evaluation which limited information available from schools.
In our work leading up to the Interim Report (Lindsay et al, 2010) we explored views
of the materials. At that time there were criticisms of elements of the dyslexia and
Slcn modules. Unlike the SEND Toolkit for ITT there was no pilot phase. This
evidence was reported to the Dcsf and the National Strategies, who had also
become aware of these issues. As a result, revisions of the materials were
undertaken. The development of the autism spectrum and Besd materials benefitted
from this formative evaluation of the earlier modules and our Interim Report (Lindsay
et al., 2010) shows that the autism spectrum materials were viewed more positively
(it was too early for evidence on the Besd module). Revisions of the dyslexia and
Slcn were launched in February 2011, too late to be included in the evaluation.
In this Section we examine evidence about both the Idp materials and the
implementation of the roll out as a national programme of continuing professional
17 http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/116691 (last accessed 28.2.11)
development (Cpd). Evidence was derived from our interviews and surveys as well
as data gathered by the National Strategies from teachers that had undergone Idp
training.
3.2 The dissemination of the Idp
The Idp was rolled out over three school years: dyslexia and Slcn (2008-09),
autism spectrum (2009-10) and Besd (2010-11). As it was non-mandatory, all LAs
and schools engaged with the Idp voluntarily. Hence engagement was likely to be a
function of two main factors:
• the needs and priorities of each LA and school
• the perceived benefits of the Idp itself, a function of its usefulness and
relevance.
The Teacher Voice survey (November 2010) indicated that 58% of respondents were
aware of the Idp materials. However, there was a substantial difference by phase:
two thirds (66%) of primary teachers compared with half (49%) of secondary
teachers were aware of the materials. The proportion of teachers overall who were
aware of the materials increased by 23 percentage points compared with an earlier
surveys in November 2009 and 30 percentage points compared with February
200918. About one in five of all teachers in the sample were aware of the materials
but had not used any of them (Table 3.1).
18 These were undertaken on behalf of the DfE outside the research programme
Table 3.1 Which part of the Inclusion Development Programme (developed by the National Strategies) have you used? % All % Primary % Secondary Dyslexia
23 30 15
Speech, language and Communication Needs
21 30 10
Autism Spectrum
23 29 16
Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties
21 24 18
I was aware of these materials but have not used any of them
21 20 23
I was not aware of these materials
42 34 51
Local base (N) 2174 1205 963 Respondents were able to select more than one response for each of the materials (dyslexia, Slcn, autism spectrum and Besd), or could select either that they were aware but had not used the materials or were not aware, so percentages may sum to more than 100.Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total. Source: Nfer Omnibus Survey November 2010 Where teachers had used the materials the percentages were similar for each
module at about one in five. However, primary teachers were more likely to have
used the dyslexia, Slcn and autism spectrum materials by a ratio of two or three to
one. For Besd there was a much lower discrepancy (24% primary v 18%
secondary). A greater proportion of classroom teachers (46%) were unaware of the
materials compared with senior teachers (27%). Hence awareness of the Idp has
increased over the project but the need for continuing effort to cascade down the
information to classroom teachers is apparent.
Our surveys in autumn 2009 and 2010 indicated an increase in the proportion of
head teachers that had received training in the Idp and maintenance of the high
proportion of SENCOs that had received training:
• Increase in head teachers from 19% to 32%.
• 77% of SENCOs in each year
• 71% of experienced teachers in each year
3.2.1 LA activity in the academic year 2010-2011
The early development of the Idp has been described in the Interim Report. Activity
in the final year, 2010-11, built upon these foundations with all LAs engaged in
maintaining their dissemination and embedding strategies. These strategies
encompassed a wide variety of dissemination and engagement methods, which
ranged from work with individual schools to LA-wide Idp module re-engagement. At
the time of the final interviews (January 2011), the refreshed Slcn and Dyslexia
modules had not yet been received by any LA Idp lead. As a result, most work was
focused on the As and Besd modules.
Dissemination and embedding of Idp modules took the following forms:
• The utilisation of SENCO, head teacher, senior school leadership, Nqt, and
inclusion networks
• Launch conferences
• Work with individual schools identified as, for example, having particular
autism spectrum needs
• Work with identified staff, for example, school support staff
• Work with pilot schools to develop models of good practice and Idp
embedding
• Work with school hubs, using a hub and spoke model, with a lead school
disseminating, in turn, to a number of other schools
• Publicising the Idp using bulletins
• Outreach team activity
• Embedding Idp material into LA Nqt induction programmes
• Ensuring Idp awareness among all LA staff working with schools
The evidence provided by the LA Idp leads suggested that effectiveness in terms of
both dissemination and embedding was related to individual contacts being made
and developed between LA and school staff. In addition, a constant reiteration of the
Idp message was necessary. Launch events and the use of networks where
attendance was optional were less effective methods of dissemination. An example
was provided by the lead for one LA, where the Besd module was advertised in the
LA’s head teachers’ bulletin, and at a workshop at the LA’s SENCO conference;
following which the LA asked for schools to volunteer to be involved in embedding
the Besd, however ‘only a handful’ did so. By contrast, LA C160 ensured that every
Smt lead in every secondary school in the LA was personally made aware of the
Besd module in visits made to every school. In addition, specific Besd Idp training
was undertaken in all the LA’s PRU provision sites. Funding was also made
available, via the SEN Regional Hub, to train and support As champions in one LA’s
secondary schools (Box 3.1)
Box 3.1 Developing Idp champions for Autism Spectrum in schools
‘We’ve got 13 secondary schools in the LA, so we decided we would train Asd Champions, using the Idp. We asked for two practitioners from every secondary school to come to this training. One of them would be the Champion, one the Supporter. The training was over six sessions, and at each session there were practical activities, some self-study time, and also the opportunity to make resources, and to look at different ways of working with children with Asd. And it was an incredibly, incredibly successful training. We’ve written a report of the outcomes of it, and the skills level and the knowledge level of these people that have come on the course is phenomenal. From the first initial evaluation to the impact evaluation has been huge, huge progress. And every school now has got a pot of money from this £3000, and a Toolkit, and the pot of money is to buy resources and a Toolkit. And also they’ve set up their own network, and their own kind of blog on the intranet, where they can blog about what they’ve been doing, and how it’s worked, and other people can buy into that. So it’s been a fantastic little project.’ LA lead
There was a realisation among LA leads that the constant reiteration of the Idp
message was a necessary element of ensuring schools’ engagement with the Idp,
and the development of sustainability. This process was enhanced by utilising all
opportunities to refer to the Idp and its purpose of providing foundation level
knowledge for all school staff. LA outreach teams, specialist support, and the leads
themselves constantly referred schools to the Idp. Further, in some LAs, an explicit
link was being made between the Idp and the provision of SEND support (Box 3.2).
Box 3.2 Flagging up the Idp
‘Idp conversations are being maintained through what we call our Planning and Review Meetings that the Inclusion Support Team and the EPs (educational psychologists) undertake with schools.’ LA lead ‘I guess it’s about every opportunity. Flag it up at every opportunity there is, really, to make schools aware, and to encourage schools to become, you know, engaged with the materials.’ LA lead
‘The autism specialist team ask schools to have used the Idp first, before they come in and do any training, and that is good. So they’re being quite strict about that. So they’re seeing the Idp as kind of the baseline kind of awareness-raising training, before they come in and do anything more specialised.’ LA lead
In 2010-11 in the evaluation sample the dominant focus across all LAs, was on the
Besd and As modules (dyslexia and Slcn having been the focus before this), and
there was an awareness that these modules were particularly applicable to a wide
range of school staff. Support staff, lunchtime supervisors, and child minders were
included in some LA dissemination of the modules. For example one LA lead
commented: ‘We’re also going to target child minders, because there’s an issue
about children within early years hitting the school system with quite significant levels
of need, and the Child Minding Services are asking for some kind of coherent training
package around SEN and disability, and we’ve highlighted the Idp materials, all four
sets of materials’,
3.2.2 School engagement with the Idp
Our 2010-11 survey showed that almost all (99%) of head teachers gave priority to
Wave 1 ‘quality first’ teaching in every class improving teaching and learning for
pupils (89% high and 10% medium priority). Priorities for development were generally
consistent across the four SEND groups:
• 53% high, 33% medium priority for dyslexia
• 49% high, 34% medium priority for Slcn
• 48% high, 32% medium priority for Asd
• 52% high, 34% medium priority for Besd
A criticism of initiatives such as the Idp may be that these are ‘top down’,
government driven rather than ‘bottom up’, driven by local decisions at school level. It
is interesting, therefore, to note the views of head teachers:
• 83% disagreed that the Idp was ‘just another initiative’
• 79% agreed that it was appropriate to aim Idp guidance at head teachers.
Given the ongoing debate on inclusion, it is also of note that:
• 97% agreed that the Idp was right to focus on inclusive teaching.
A lower, but still substantial majority of head teachers had a positive view on the
relationship between the Idp and school improvement:
• 71% judged the Idp made an important contribution to school improvement
(2010 cohort).
LA leads reported different success rates in engaging schools with the Idp, reflecting
these schools’ priorities. A small minority reported low levels of engagement, for
example: ‘I would have to say that we have had very little take up and are always
trying to get schools to use the Idp’. Other leads reported low levels of school
engagement in terms of school numbers involved, but argued that those schools
which had engaged represented good practice that would, it was hoped, influence
practice in other schools. This had been formalised in one LA, where a hub and
spoke model had been adopted, where five hub schools were each responsible for
cascading Idp As and dyslexia modules to four or five other schools. A minority of
leads were able to provide figures for numbers of schools that had engaged, for
example, in one LA, 60% of 450 primary schools, 30% of 72 secondary schools, and
50% of 26 special schools had engaged with one or more of the Idp modules, while
the lead for another LA noted that 70% of SENCOs had attended termly Idp
updates, and 60% of schools had provided evidence of engagement with one or
more modules of the Idp.
Typically, leads reported that there had been greater take up of the Idp by primary
schools but that, in some cases, secondary schools were resistant to the Idp. There
was awareness on the part of a minority of leads that successfully engaging schools
depended on key staff in schools and the LA taking on board the Idp message (Box
3.3).
Box 3.3 Ensuring school engagement with the Idp – barriers
‘We were never able to persuade School Improvement Plan colleagues to have the Idp on their set of questions, therefore we do not have a total number of schools that have engaged with the Idp, other than those who have worked directly with LA personnel’, LA lead. ‘Despite the fact that the DVDs and the letters and flyers often go in addressed to the Head Teachers in schools, there are still quite a few Head Teachers who don’t actually know about it. They look at it, and just hand it straight over to the SENCO’, LA lead.
There was a significant increase in the school level Idp training, as shown by our
surveys of SENCOs, between 2009 and 2010: chi square comparison indicated that
the proportion of SENCOs reporting that, in those schools where Idp Cpd was
delivered, the percentage of schools where it was aimed at all teachers and teaching
assistants (TAs) increased from 21% in 2009 to 53% in 2010 (p < .001) for dyslexia
and from 13% to 43% (p < .001) for Slcn. The proportions for 2010 for As and
Besd were 44% and 38% respectively (no data were collected in 2009). Hence,
dissemination was increasingly being targeted, as hoped, across all teachers; but
training was also including TAs. Head teacher responses corroborated this pattern.
The LA leads reported a pronounced difference in the level of schools’ engagement
with the different modules of the Idp with the As module perceived as the most
popular of the four. The main explanation for this was that the As module was the
most accessible, manageable in terms of content size, and user-friendly of the four;
in addition, it was felt that schools were increasingly encountering pupils with As
needs (Box 3.4).
Box 3.4 The success of the Autism Spectrum module
‘It was a more manageable size – both the dyslexia and Slcn were too large and schools have limited capacity for Cpd that has to be used for disseminating all the new ideas and proposals sent annually to school by the DfE, Ofsted, National Strategies etc’, LA lead ‘The As module is most popular, I think partly [because of ] need, because there is an explosion of children causing concern across the county, with autistic-type behaviours, and I think also partly because the materials are so easy to use, as well. And I think people feel very engaged by them,’ LA lead
The relative lack of popularity of the Slcn and dyslexia modules that was reported
by the leads hinged on the difficulty of using the original materials: the refreshed
versions of both modules were eagerly awaited at the time of interview19.
A small minority of the LA leads suggested reasons for differing levels of school
engagement with the various modules. Three LA leads explained that the LA had
incorporated Idp modules into wider LA strategy that schools were expected to
comply with, particularly in relation to behaviour and attendance strategies. This was
also the case for the dyslexia module in a number of LAs, where the ability to achieve
dyslexia friendly status required schools to incorporate the Idp dyslexia module into
their daily teaching and learning practice.
19 These were made available in February 2011
3.3 Schools’ reasons for engaging with the Idp modules
The Idp is a voluntary initiative and therefore school leaders had to have a reason
for engaging with it. Across the 28 sample schools the main motivations throughout
the three academic years of the study were, in order of prevalence:
• a desire to improve practice – schools had identified a need to improve
provision for pupils with dyslexia/Slcn/autism/Besd and saw the relevant
Idp module as a way forward;
• a desire to gain external recognition for existing inclusive practice – schools
that were seeking to gain or to renew Dyslexia Friendly School status20, for
example, saw the Idp as supporting that process (in some LAs, engaging
with the Idp was made a required part of the process);
• a desire to refresh and reinvigorate existing inclusive practice – the Idp was
seen as enabling that.
In the first year (2008-09), the LA work around the Idp played a key part in facilitating
engagement with the programme. LA events informed school leaders and/or
SENCOs about the Idp and introduced either or both to the first set of materials (the
dyslexia and Slcn modules were originally produced as one joint package). In some
cases, these events were followed by offers of specialist advisory teacher time to
deliver Idp training in schools or by LA-wide courses based on the Idp materials.
Both of these increased the likelihood of schools engaging with the Idp. In that year,
too, some LAs influenced school-level decisions about which of the first two modules
to prioritise. (Further details in Lindsay et al., 2010)
In the subsequent two academic years (2009-10 and 2010-11), overall, school
leaders reported less activity around promoting the Idp at LA level but SENCOs
described specific ways in which LA support had been important in facilitating
continued use of the Idp in their schools. For example, in the autumn 2010 final set
of interviews, half the SENCOs, drawn from different LAs belonging to different
regional SEN hubs, reported this occurring (see Box 3.5 for typical examples of types
of support from two different LAs).
20 http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/quality-mark-and-accreditation/dyslexia-friendly-quality-mark.html#
accessed 16.2.11
Box 3.5 Examples of LA support facilitating schools’ continued use of the Idp
1. The SENCO felt confident enough in her knowledge of dyslexia and Besd to lead school Cpd around these herself but she felt less confident to do the same for the Slcn and As modules. These were led respectively by the local speech and language inclusion team and the autism outreach team. 2. As each new module became available, all SENCOs were invited to a two-hour session to familiarise themselves with it. This was valued as a space to think about and discuss with peers ideas on how best to introduce the module to school staff and to develop Cpd around it. It also meant that LA specialists were on hand to offer advice and guidance.
SENCOs appeared to be fairly reliant on their LA to inform them as each new module
became available. For example, one SENCO had not seen the Besd module by
December 2010 (‘I’ve heard nothing from the LA on that one’) and so had not thought
of using it in school despite being aware that behavioural issues were becoming a
problem as its pupil intake changed. Conversely, because he had attended an LA
event introducing the As module, he had planned a two-level approach to using it in
school: encouraging one teacher with a pupil on the autism spectrum in her class to
use the whole module independently and inviting in either an LA or voluntary sector
specialist to introduce it to the whole staff. Only two SENCOs mentioned another
source of information: Nasen conferences. This suggests that LA activity to
disseminate and embed the Idp, supported by the regional hubs, was crucial in
engaging schools to use the Idp.
Adding to what was reported in our Interim Report (Lindsay et al., 2010, p38), as time
went on, reasons for not engaging with any specific Idp module related mainly to the
prioritisation of activity within the school development plan. Take-up of the dyslexia
and Slcn modules (amongst schools in the sample that had not begun these during
2008-09) was negatively affected by the knowledge that they were being revised and
schools thought it better to wait for the new versions21. By the third set of interviews,
the technical difficulties in using the As module reported at the interim stage were no
longer mentioned and take-up linked directly to perceived relevance, in relation to a
school’s current cohort of pupils. By the end of the evaluation period, the Besd
module had not been fully rolled out across all LAs and so take-up was affected
where an LA had not yet promoted it through its SENCO forum or similar, or through
a specific event.
21 The new versions were published in February 2011, too late to be included in the evaluation.
In the final set of school interviews, as well as describing the motivations for
engaging with each specific Idp module, many of the senior leaders articulated
clearly the over-arching school aim giving purpose to their continuing engagement
with the Idp. The range of aims and purposes included:
• Using all four Idp modules to bring all staff to a common grounding of
knowledge, skills and understanding ‘for the good of our children’.
• Using the dyslexia and Slcn modules to support the whole school literacy
strategy.
• Using the dyslexia module to support the school bid for the LA’s Dyslexia
Friendly Full Status award.
• Using all four modules to support significant development work around SEND
and inclusion to address underachievement.
• Using the impetus of work on the dyslexia and Slcn modules to shift the
whole school approach to one underpinned by the principle of curriculum
access for every pupil, supported by individual pupil mentoring, and using the
Idp modules to identify suitable teaching and learning strategies to support
progress.
These examples indicate how school improvement aims and the Idp complemented
each other.
3.4 Approaches to Cpd around the Idp
As reported in our Interim Report, the quality of the Cpd process around the Idp was
a main factor in determining its effectiveness in promoting positive and inclusive
changes in teaching practices. This finding was reinforced by the final set of school
interviews.
Effective Idp Cpd, according to the school interviewees, was, first of all, tailored to
the school context. This meant both having a clear, school-driven purpose in deciding
to use any particular Idp module; and pitching the material selected from (or inspired
by) the module to the interests and varied knowledge base of the staff audience. For
example, one head teacher reported that the Idp Cpd content for each module in
turn had been pitched to focus on areas where the school recognised improvements
in practice were needed and that specific staff had been included in more or less of
the content according to their level of prior knowledge:
Box 3.6 Pitching Idp Cpd to school audience
‘[In each Idp module] we’ve taken the bits that we wanted to make improvements with and gone with that. We categorically didn’t want to go from the very beginning [of a module] and go through all the stages because we already had expertise in some areas. […] Some of us have got a lot of knowledge and some of us have got a little knowledge and what we’re able to do with this is support those that need more and take away those that don’t. I’ve done As as part of my Ma so I wouldn’t need as much [on that module] as one of our NQTs who needs a lot more’, Head teacher.
Not all schools got this delicate balancing act right for all staff. In one school, for
example, the experienced teacher interviewed was enthusiastic about the content
and pitch of the Idp Cpd around dyslexia, whereas the Nqt had doubted the value
of the exercise for her as she worked in the infant class where many of the
recommended strategies, such as multi-sensory teaching and use of lots of visual
cues, were already in place and where, initially at least, she regarded the children as
too young to be thought of in relation to dyslexia. As time went on though, she
reported, she realised the benefit was not in ‘diagnosing’ such young children but in
observing and recording information about any child whose learning profile was in
any way suggestive of emerging dyslexia so that this could be followed up on in the
subsequent year group if necessary.
Involving all teachers (and sometimes all TAs too) emerged as a factor in the
effectiveness of the Idp Cpd process because it built up a sense of school
cohesiveness, consistency and peer support. For example, both the experienced
teacher and the early career teacher in one school reported benefits from this:
Box 3.7 Benefits of involving all staff in Idp Cpd
‘Within the staff meeting when we’ve got all the staff in, it’s actually time that we can talk to other members of staff to gain from their subject knowledge about children with dyslexia or anything we’re not sure about. Especially with the autism spectrum, I could talk to people that have obviously got more knowledge about it than I have, or with speech and language, I can approach them at that time. Not that I can’t do it at any other time, I can, but it’s a set time where we can discuss any problems that we think might be occurring.’ Experienced teacher. ‘The staff meetings and the training days, they involve all the staff, including the TAs as well, and they make sure that all staff are in the know. I think it’s worked well really sharing good practice with each other, especially with the speech and language with there being a speech and language centre within the school, so staff are more skilled in that area to support. It’s working really well to see what other classes are doing. […] The main thing that works well when we have training is being together and sharing the practice together.’ Nqt
The reported value of this approach may be summed up in the words of the SENCO
and the head teacher from different schools who also acknowledged how hard it was
to find such time (Box 3.8):
Box 3.8 Preciousness of Cpd time
‘I think including everybody has been valuable. […] Just the fact that we were all doing the same thing. We were all discussing issues. We were discussing the practicalities of working with our children. That to me has been one of the benefits of this. […] But we do find that hard in school. Finding time to do that and have proper quality discussions sometimes is really hard to do because we’ve so many other pressures on the staff.’ Head teacher ‘I think one of the biggest things we’ve put in, that isn’t actually part of the Idp but was part of our learning process, has been the time to talk to people about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. So what made the biggest difference, I think, is being able to have some time. […] Yes, I think the things that we’ve learned are that you give the information, and then you have to build in time for the information to be discussed, thought about, and then put in place with specific students in mind.’ SENCO
Staff interviews suggested that the Idp Cpd was especially valuable and effective in
changing practice across a whole school when enough time was allocated to the
process, not only to enable discussion and sharing of current good practice, but also
to enable action planning to take place, to give time for individual reflection,
opportunities to try out new approaches and strategies, to review how that went, and
to revisit the topic on multiple occasions, such as reminders in other staff meetings or
during informal discussions with the SENCO, as well as further formal Cpd sessions.
‘Revisiting’ could mean something as simple as the SENCO sending round an e-mail
to all staff reminding them about the practical applications of the sessions, which one
experienced teacher in another school mentioned in relation to the As module:
‘Quite recently, there’s been another e-mail with lots of information gone
round again to remind people of what is a good approach, what not to do,
what to do, what you can expect from [students on the spectrum], and when
to sort of leave them alone, what sort of strategies you can put in place to
actually work.’
Other teachers in other schools spoke about informal reminders from colleagues
during staffroom discussions as helpful in maintaining that sense of all working
together and reminding one another of approaches and strategies suggested in the
Idp. One Cpd lead reflected that the Idp had ‘really pushed the coaching and
mentoring aspect of Cpd which is what my vision is, as coordinator, for that to
happen’. She talked about how ‘finding the answers ourselves’ had been a valuable
part of the continuing professional development with staff ‘not being afraid to go to
each other to be coached and mentored and to ask stupid questions’.
A proactive senior leadership, offering encouragement and support for integration of
new approaches and strategies into practice, backed up by monitoring and review,
played a key part in ensuring that the Idp Cpd was effective in producing more
consistent, high quality, mainstream classroom teaching. In one school for example,
senior leaders were selecting, as the focus of learning walks, key features of a
communication supportive school that they expected to be in place in every class
because of the Idp Cpd. Following that observation, each teacher would be given an
action plan to work on over the year and opportunities would be created for the whole
staff to have ‘time to revisit and revisit and revisit’ in order to build confidence in using
new strategies until they became embedded and consistent across the school. The
impact of these innovations was also being monitored on sets of specific pupils at a
time. The senior leadership of this school was not alone in using this approach: it was
characteristic of the schools where there was most reported evidence of consistent
impact on teaching practice across the school.
Creating consistent impact across a large secondary school was much harder than in
a small primary school. Of the examples we came across, the most effective way to
work with secondary school staff seemed to be to introduce all staff to an Idp module
and then follow this up in more detail at department/faculty level, beginning either
with the core subjects of English, maths and science, or beginning with staff from any
department that were interested in using the Idp to improve pupil access to and
engagement with the curriculum. Appendix 3 provides three examples of how the Idp
was used in secondary schools.
Effective use of the Idp in Cpd included ensuring that the content around practical
applications and strategies to remove barriers to learning was clearly signalled to
staff. The Idp modules were valued in this regard:
‘The Idp was something that was useful. Everybody complains about going to
courses where you come away and think, “How can I put that into practice?”
That wasn’t the case with the Idp materials because there were many, many
things there that people could put into place. There was a lot of knowledge
and understanding that could be gleaned from the materials and there were
very, very practical and easy to put into place,’ SENCO.
Having access to resources to refer back to, or to explore in more depth, at a later
date, was also valued by teachers as effective in supporting their implementing new
practices. For the Idp Cpd this meant access to the Dvd and/or online versions of
the full modules and/or printed information prepared by the SENCO for each person
to keep. Box 3.9 summarises the important factors that were instrumental in the Idp
being successful in changing practice
Box 3.9 Main features of Cpd around the Idp that were effective in
changing practice
Staff reports indicated that Idp Cpd that resulted in positive, inclusive changes in whole school teaching practice and learning environments was: • Tailored to the school context – Idp module topic related to a school aim (for example, to improve literacy across the school or to improve teaching and learning for pupils at School Action); content selected was pitched and differentiated to suit interests and knowledge-base of staff audience. • Included all teachers; even better if all TAs were also included (for As and Besd modules, some schools included all class-based and non-class based staff). • Was a process, rather than a one-off event, and included time for staff to discuss together, share ideas, agree a plan of action; time to reflect on how to implement agreed plan; time to try out strategies in their classes, to review and feedback on these and so on, including some monitoring and review by senior leadership and tracking of impact on pupil progress. • Had a clear focus on immediate relevance to improved practice. • Provided information resources to which reference could be made at a later date and where further information could be found for those wishing to explore the topic in more depth (the Idp online and Dvd versions and school- specific resource packs prepared by the SENCO). Where individual staff members needed to skill up around teaching and learning for a specific pupil or pupils in their class, it was also effective for that person to be encouraged to work through the appropriate Idp module independently, with encouragement and support from the SENCO where appropriate. Using a module independently was also seen as an effective way for new staff to ‘skill up’ quickly.
4. Inclusion Development Programme: Impact
Main Findings
• The Idp materials have increased teachers’ knowledge, understanding and
confidence of dyslexia, Slcn, autism spectrum and Besd, especially among
primary teachers.
• 8 out of ten teachers rated Idp training as effective
• 9 out of 10 SENCOs reported that the Idp had improved pupils’ learning.
• Newly qualified teachers were more confident to support pupils with SEND if
they had received Idp training.
4.1 Introduction
The previous section described the development and implementation of the Idp as a
form of continuing professional development (Cpd). In this section we consider the
effectiveness of the Idp. Information addressing impact and effectiveness was
gathered through surveys, interviews with key staff and from data provided by the
National Strategies.
4.2 The Impact of the Idp – quantitative findings
4.2.1 Teacher Voice survey
Just under three quarters of teachers responding to the Teacher Voice survey
(November 2010) who had used the Idp materials (or had Cpd based on them)
reported that the knowledge about the four types of SEN had been increased ‘a fair
amount’ or ‘a great deal’, range 72% (dyslexia, Besd) to 75% autism spectrum
(Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 To what extent have the materials increased your knowledge of:
% Don’t
Know
% I didn’t need help
to do them
% Not
at all
% Not
very much
% A fair
amount
% A great
deal
Dyslexia 1 5 2 20 59 13
Slcn 1 4 3 19 60 13
As 1 8 1 15 54 21
Besd 1 6 2 20 57 15
N = 449-499
About two thirds of the teachers reported that their understanding had improved ‘a
fair amount’ or ‘a great deal’, range 67% Besd to 73% autism spectrum (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 To what extent have the materials increased your understanding
how to teach pupils with:
% Don’t
Know
% I didn’t need help
to do them
% Not at
all
% Not
very much
% A fair
amount
% A great
deal
Dyslexia 1 4 3 23 58 11
Slcn 2 4 4 22 58 10
As 1 7 2 17 53 20
Besd 3 5 2 23 54 13
N = 448 – 498
With respect to confidence in teaching pupils with one of these categories of SEN,
the comparable proportions of teachers were slightly lower, range 63% Besd to 68%
autism spectrum (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3 To what extent have the materials helped you to improve your
confidence in teaching pupils with:
% Don’t
Know
% I didn’t need help
to do them
% Not at
all
% Not
very much
% A fair
amount
% A great
deal
Dyslexia 1 4 4 25 55 11
Slcn 2 5 6 25 54 10
As 1 8 3 20 52 16
Besd 3 8 3 23 50 13
N = 447 – 496
The consistent pattern is for the overall ratings of the materials to be positive (from
just under two thirds to just under three quarters of teachers) but the autism spectrum
materials were consistently rated as having a greater impact.
Primary v secondary
Differences between phases were variable. Primary teachers were more likely to give
positive ratings to the dyslexia materials than secondary teachers (74% v 69%
knowledge, 72% v 64% understanding and 67% v 62% confidence). The results for
Slcn and autism spectrum were very similar (Table 4.4). However, the main
difference here between phases was the strength of positive judgements. On all
except one comparison, the primary teachers were more likely to say their
knowledge, understanding and confidence had improved ‘a great deal’ whereas
secondary teachers tended to rate this change as ‘a fair amount’ (Table 4.5).
Table 4.4 Percentage of teachers rating the impact of the materials to
increase knowledge, understanding and confidence ‘a fair
amount’ or ‘a great deal’
Dyslexia Slcn Autism Besd
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Knowledge 74 69 73 72 75 76 71 71
Understanding 72 64 69 69 72 75 69 67
Confidence 67 62 64 63 69 68 65 62
Table 4.5 Percentage of teachers rating the impact of the materials to
increase knowledge, understanding and confidence ‘a great deal’
Dyslexia Slcn Autism Besd
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Knowledge 15 9 14 8 21 21 15 13
Understanding 13 8 12 6 22 15 14 12
Confidence 12 8 10 7 17 13 15 10
4.2.2 Our surveys
Our own surveys of SENCOs, head teachers, experienced teachers, NQTs and
teaching assistants complemented that commissioned as part of the Teacher Voice
survey. About two thirds of SENCOs in 2010 considered that the Idp had improved
their ability to provide support for pupils (ranging from 67% Besd to 79% autism
spectrum). SENCOs were also asked to judge the impact of Idp Cpd. The results
from 2010 are presented in Table 4.6 (there were no significant differences
compared with the 2009 findings).
Table 4.6 Percentage of SENCOs reporting impact of the Idp on teachers
and pupils
The Idp Cpd has: Strongly disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree Promoted discussion of pupils’ teaching and learning needs
1 3 85 11
Improved teachers’ knowledge
1 5 83 11
Improved teachers’ skills in setting targets
1 25 67 7
Improved skills in tracking and recording progress
2 38 55 5
Promoted collaboration between teachers and TAs
1 18 69 12
Improved teachers’ empathy with specific pupils’ barriers to learning
2 8 79 11
Benefitted the learning of targeted pupils
1 10 80 9
Improved teachers’ confidence in working with parents
2 18 75 5
N = 171-233
Both SENCOs and, more particularly experienced teachers, who had undertaken Idp
training, rated it effective. The autism spectrum training was especially highly
regarded. There were no significant differences between the 2009 and 2010 cohorts,
indicating stability of these ratings.
• Dyslexia: 64% SENCOs, 81% teachers
• Slcn: 70% SENCOs, 77% teachers
• Autism spectrum: 74% SENCOs, 84% teachers
• Besd: 79% SENCOs22
SENCOs in both 2009 and 2010 were positive about the impact of the Idp on their
work, for example:
• 85% judged that the Idp had provided flexible materials
• About three quarters considered the Idp had improved their ability to
coordinate support for pupils
o Dyslexia: 77%
o Slcn: 72%
o Autism spectrum: 79%
o Besd: 67%
• 80% judged that the Idp had raised awareness of the link between quality
first teaching and improved attainment.
Teachers that had experienced Idp training also reported a range of positive impacts
from the Idp:
• Raised awareness of ‘quality first’ teaching: 89%
• Made me think more about how to remove barriers to learning: 95%
• Raised my confidence in planning and delivering teaching: 90%
• Prompted collaboration with TAs: 88%
• Improved my knowledge: 93%
• Improved one or more of my teaching practices: 90%
• Benefitted the learning of pupils: 87%
• Improved my empathy with pupils’ barriers to learning: 91%
22 Too few teachers had undertaken training by the time of our final survey.
Hence, both SENCOs (Table 4.6) and experienced teachers that had undertaken Idp
training reported impact on their awareness, attitudes, knowledge, skills and
confidence.
NQTs
We conducted three surveys of newly qualified teachers (NQTs) in the winter of
2008-09, 2009-10 and finally 2010-11. We report here the results for the 2010-11
cohort (N = 2537) gathered at the end of the study (February-March, 2011).
Only a quarter (26%) of NQTs were aware of the Idp. Training had been undertaken
by 11% for dyslexia, 7% Slcn, 13% autism spectrum, and 14% Besd (with some
NQTs trained in more than one strand). Of those that had been trained, the materials
were rated ‘user friendly’ by over 90% of respondents – see Figure 4.1 for the autism
spectrum as an example.
Figure 4.1: User friendliness – Autism Spectrum materials
Those NQTs that had undertaken Idp training felt more confidence than those that
had not for all four categories of SEND: 82% v 54% dyslexia; 81% v 53% Slcn; 82%
v 54% autism spectrum; and 82% v 67% Besd (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 Confidence of NQTs to support pupils as a function of Idp
training
About two thirds of NQTs in general considered that there had been improvements in
pupils with SEND associated with the SEND training (Table 4.7).
Table 4.7: Improvements in pupils with SEND associated with Idp training
(% NQTs)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
agree
Academic outcomes 18.6 18.7 59.3 3.4
Motivation and engagement in learning 17.8 14.7 59.8 7.7
Social interaction with peers 18.1 20.7 55.6 5.7
Participation in matters that affect them 18.6 23.7 52.8 5.0
General feelings of well-being 17.5 15.3 59.8 7.4
N = 625-64
In summary, only a quarter of NQTs had received Idp training but those that had
were positive about its usefulness. NQTs with Idp training were more confident to
teach pupils with SEND than those without such training.
Teaching assistants
A survey of TAs was carried out in 2010-11. Caution must be exercised in
interpreting these data as only 101 TAs responded, of whom half (53%) had received
training. These TAs’ views were consistently positive with 85-93% judging the
information and training to be effective and over 90% reporting positive impact by the
training for different outcomes, e.g.:
• 93% reported the Idp had raised their confidence in planning and delivering
work
• 96% had improved their skills
• 98% had improved their knowledge
• 98% had improved their practice
Head teachers’ views were very positive: 90% were confident that their TAs had the
knowledge for effective teaching of pupils with SEND.
4.2.3 National Strategies
The National Strategies collected data on the impact of the Idp by use of self-
evaluation questionnaires completed by teachers before and after Idp training,
organised through the regional hubs. Figure 4.3 shows the change in teachers self
evaluation of their level of dyslexia and Slcn knowledge and practice as a result of
Idp training (2008-09). There was a substantial shift from the early stage of
focussing and developing knowledge to the level of establishing and enhancing
knowledge and skills.
Figure 4.3 Changes in teachers’ dyslexia and Slcn knowledge and skills
after Idp training
N = 1783
A similar pattern was found by teachers undertaking the Idp training on supporting
pupils on the autism spectrum. Figure 4.4 shows their ratings of confidence before
and after training.
Figure 4.4 Changes in teachers’ confidence levels for supporting pupils on
the autism spectrum after Idp training.
N = 1834
Systematic school case study data collected by the National Strategies provided
supportive qualitative information. For example, 44 schools reported their use of the
autism spectrum materials. These case studies indicate schools successfully putting
their learning from the Idp into practice. Evidence was also emerging of impact on
pupils. This applies to their behaviour, social relationships and attainment. For
example, in one primary school focus children were reported to have made two
sublevels progress over the year. ‘One child made such good progress, an average
of 2.67 sublevels per subject that she comes off an Iep in March.’23
4.3 The impact of the Idp – qualitative findings
4.3.1 Impact on school staff and teaching practice – the LA perspective
The data collected from the LA leads indicated that there was a range of local
approaches to the collection of output and outcome data. In some cases, no data
were collected, limited resources being cited as a reason for this. But one lead, for
example, also made the point that she understood the Idp as being Cpd for schools
and that begged the question, ‘Do I monitor schools? Is that my role? I’m not sure’. In
23 Case studies are available at http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/casestudies
other cases, different degrees of data were collected on each of the Idp modules,
the As module being disseminated by the LA’s autism outreach team, which
collected output and outcome data, whereas the Slcn module was delivered
through conference and cascade, and few data were subsequently collected.
Typically, the data collected by LA leads was in the nature of teacher feedback,
impressions, and the Idp self-audit process, with comparatively little data being
collected utilising pupil or parent/carer voice; although, in some cases this was
planned for the future.
In the majority of cases, LA leads had a clearer idea of the impact of the Idp on
school staff and teaching practice than on pupils or parents. There was a near
universal perception that school engagement with the Idp had raised awareness of
the SEND issues among teaching and, in some cases, non-teaching staff. However,
linking raised awareness with comprehensive evidence of improved outcomes for
pupils was a less clear area with, for example, one lead noting: ‘One of the significant
benefits is that it’s just raised awareness in relation to those four areas of need
generally, but in terms of impact measures, we still feel […] that it’s really too early,
and it’s still difficult to get that robust evaluation of the linkage between staff
development and outcomes for children’.
Data were collected by 11 of the LAs, focusing on feedback from outreach teams
involved in Idp training and support, school reporting of Idp self-audits, and
anecdotal information. For example, the autism outreach team from one LA provided
‘very positive’ feedback to the lead indicating that there had been a notable
improvement in teachers’ knowledge and understanding following delivery of the As
module. Once again, however, the lead from this LA, was unable to provide further
evidence of pupil impact. More thorough reporting by an As outreach team was
reported from another LA (Box 4.1) built around discussions with teaching staff,
lesson observations, and classroom audits.
Box 4.1 Teaching staff and the As module; Example from one LA
• ‘Evidence is seen in discussion with teachers that refer to Idp. They confidently describe strategies they use, knowledge of the child, their needs, and willingness to try to address strategies • Evidence seen through observation of lesson delivery, lesson organisation, use of learning resources • Teachers with a calm, assured manner. Awareness of delivery methods and pace. A positive outlook and approach towards pupils with As, and all the class in general • Classroom organisation has created autism-friendly environments • Classroom areas, quiet areas are more prominent now. Lots more use of visual aids. Teachers giving children more time to explain.’ [From autism outreach team report on As Idp impact]
The Idp self-audit, which focused on teacher confidence before and after
engagement with Idp modules, was also utilised to provide evidence relating to
module impact among teachers. For example, one LA was able to report findings
based on the self-audit (Box 4.2).
Box 4.2 Teaching staff confidence and the As module: Example from one LA
‘For many schools it has worked and the Idp: Supporting Pupils on the Autism Spectrum has been well received. Pre and post evaluations of staff confidence in supporting pupils on the autism spectrum show the following where individuals were asked to complete a self evaluation which had 32 statements and to discuss and score themselves on a rating 1–4 ‘
% before Idp activities % after Idp activities
Level 1 (least confident) 21 6
Level 2 39 15
Level 3 27 55
Level 4 (most confident) 13 24
Most LA leads were able to provide anecdotal evidence of the impact of engagement
with the Idp (see, for example, Box 4.3), although one lead, from LA C157,
questioned over-reliance on teacher reporting of anecdotal impact evidence.
Box 4.3 Teaching practice and the Besd module: Example from one LA
‘A [school] partnership had had training on the Behaviour Idp, and the SENCO who had organised the training for the partnership rang up the Behaviour Support Teacher who’d run the training, incredibly excited, a few days later, because she’d actually been in a staff room in the school, where somebody had come in … you know, how people do, sort of saying, I’m not teaching so-and-so again, he’s done this, he’s done that, you know, and I just can’t be putting up with it. And somebody else said, no, we can’t have that, you know. Because of the Idp, we’ve got to look at why he’s like that. And there was an incredibly stimulating discussion, using the Idp,’ (LA lead)
4.3.2 Impact on teaching and learning – the schools’ perspective
The Idp aimed to raise teachers’ knowledge and understanding of, and skills in
dealing with, high incidence SEND. As a result, it was hoped that pupil progress
would improve and that parental confidence in the ability of mainstream schools to
meet such needs would improve.
As the questionnaire survey data in Section 4.2.2 shows, positive results from the
Idp Cpd took a range of different forms. In Appendix 2, composite lists of examples
are given based on reported impact in the 15 schools that participated in the third
round of interviews. These are reported in relation to specific Idp modules. In the
majority of the schools, the range and depth of reported impact on practice by the
autumn of 2010 was markedly more than that reported by autumn 2009/spring 2010.
The impact of the dyslexia module was enhanced where this was linked to awarding
the relevant LA’s Dyslexia Friendly Schools Award (LAs gain Dyslexia Friendly
Status from the British Dyslexia Association).
Over and above the impact of Cpd work around individual modules of the Idp,
school staff interviewed also reported wider benefits from engaging with the
programme. SENCOs and senior leaders had a greater sense of confidence that
more or most (not all) staff in their schools had the knowledge, skills and
understanding to be effective teachers of pupils with high incidence SEND.
‘[The Idp] is really good. It’s really skilling up teachers. It really is. As more
and more is being put on to us, and you have to jump through more hoops to
get outside support, it has really helped.’ SENCO
The following extended quotation provides one head teacher’s comprehensive
overview of the impact of the Idp and its relationship to school development and
improvement.
Box 4.4 The Idp and School Improvement
‘[The Idp] is a very, very crucial part of our school development plan. In fact, what’s happened is that, as we’ve grown to understand the Idp, we’ve realised that it’s having a significant impact on the Quality First teaching in the school. So, when we’ve revisited it, we’ve revisited specifically because we wanted to see how Quality First teaching had changed and improved and in what other ways we could use the Idp materials to support the development, the improvement, of Quality First teaching across the whole school. In fact, it’s had a massive impact. Far greater than we ever thought it would. When we revisited the self evaluation for speech, language and communication needs, every single member of staff was able to grade themselves at a higher level of understanding and knowledge. So this school year, we’ve decided to use elements of the Idp from the other aspects (autism and the behavioural side of things) because there’s a great overlap between the Idp [modules]. What we’re trying to do is find every single bit of good practice that we can to enhance teaching. […] Also in this school term, the other impact that it’s currently having is that we are setting performance management objectives for this school year linked again with inclusive teaching, Quality First teaching. So it’s almost taken over the way that we work, which is magnificent really.’ Head teacher
Not every senior leader or SENCO was as positive as this. In a minority of the
schools (4 of the 15) senior leaders acknowledged that the initial Cpd around the
Idp had not been followed up in ways that encouraged improved practice to become
embedded in everyday teaching.
‘If we put a specific training event on, then that brings everything to the fore
and immediately after that you notice a peak in inclusive practice and then,
until the next one, it drops off a bit. You have to keep chipping away at it but
you have to give it quality time. Although the [Idp] resources are there for
people to dip into, unless you actually create that time and that expectation,
then it won’t happen. You have to build in a rolling programme […] and we’ve
got to train experts within schools to keep that momentum going all the time.’
Head teacher/SENCO
Teachers’ confidence, about being able to offer high quality, inclusive teaching in
mainstream classes, was raised. The Idp, along with other training and Cpd, was
acknowledged as playing a part in this, alongside growing experience of teaching
pupils with different special needs.
‘I do [feel more confident]. Yes, I do. I think it’s mainly because of [the
SENCO] giving us the tools to know what we’re doing [i.e. the Idp Cpd]. I
definitely didn’t [feel confident] before. I always felt I was kind of – I don’t
know if “letting them down” is the word but not as on the ball with it as I am
now.’ Experienced teacher
There was also awareness of a growing sense of teacher ownership of responsibility
for the teaching and learning of pupils with special educational needs. For example,
in one school, this had led to time being set aside each week for the teacher to plan
with the three other staff working in that year group how best to include a girl on the
autism spectrum in the class plan so that she would be out of class as little as
possible.
A small number of interviewees specifically welcomed the Idp as a cost effective way
of delivering Cpd that had a positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning in
the school. In the context of reduced availability of LA support service in some LAs,
and greater accountability for value for money in terms of pupil outcomes, the
approach to Cpd promoted by the Idp was viewed as a way forward for schools.
‘[The Idp] is such a valuable resource. […] The training for the dyslexia saved
us, from a management point of view; it saved us an awful lot of money
[compared to] if we had to have someone coming in to do the training.’
SENCO
Another head teacher explained how she was using the Besd Idp to address an
historic use of expensive Wave 3 intervention by building knowledge and skills at
Wave 1:
‘What’s been happening is the support has been given to children on a one
to one basis mainly for behaviour. […] Because budgets are tighter, you’ve
now got to make sure that whatever interventions you are doing are adding
the maximum amount of value. The other side to it as well is that the more
information and training that you can give to teaching staff, the better they are
at putting effective planning in place for lessons where the behaviour is then
much better.’ head teacher/SENCO
4.3.3 Impact on pupil outcomes
A minority of LA Idp leads were able to provide evidence of the impact of the Idp on
pupil outcomes, although most leads noted that they felt that this process was at an
early stage, and more would be learned in future. Evidence that had been collected
came from LA outreach teams engaged in Idp delivery, and follow-up observations.
For example, one behaviour support team reported that, in one school, ‘Behaviour
improved, children are happier, calmer. They can cope better in class. Exclusions
down to four days between November 2009 and July 2010’, and ‘little changes make
a big differences to the children’. Similarly, though in relation to the As module,
another outreach team reported: ‘Within their means, [As] pupils are able to socialise
with peers; happy; reduced anxiety, and able to learn and respond to teacher input’.
Two specific examples of Idp impact on pupils were of particular interest. One LA
lead gave an account of the use of the Idp dyslexia module in one school where a
whole-school use of the module also incorporated a particular focus on boys in Years
4 and 5 who were reluctant writers. The outcome was improved provision for all
pupils, and evidenced improvements in writing by the target group. A second LA also
saw the use of the As module in a special provision in a mainstream school for post-
16 students, in which all those involved, including the students, engaged with the Idp
module (Box 4.5).
Box 4.5 Using the Idp in post 16 Autism Spectrum provision in a
mainstream school:
‘We have got a post-16 [As] provision in one of our schools, which is for children who weren’t really ready to go to college as such, and still needed school, but were post- 16. So what they put together was a really interesting little kind of sixth form, really, but most of these children were on the spectrum, the Asd spectrum. So, all the people working in this facility, or unit, all were heavily trained in the Idp. They had extra training, they had extra resources. And then the young people in the facility also were told about the Idp, and shown the Idp, and the outcome there was, the understanding of the students, and the students’ understanding of themselves, was far greater’, (LA lead).
There was limited hard evidence (exam results, test scores, National Curriculum
levels) of impact on pupils’ academic progress available from our case study schools.
However, by the third round of interviews, there was more reporting of regular
monitoring of pupil progress against targets (prompted largely by Ofsted’s focus on
vulnerable pupils), and evidence in the interviews, particularly with school leaders
and SENCOs, of how this linked to the Idp work. That is, where monitoring of pupil
progress showed progress below expected levels, teachers were using learning from
the Idp Cpd to take the next step of thinking about what to do to improve learning for
that pupil.
‘[The Slcn Idp work] informs our assessment and the way we assess
children. Our actual documentation has not changed but the way teachers
interpret speaking and listening skills has changed. People are much more
aware […] I think we’re seeing more people questioning, “Is this child special
needs or is it a communication skills difficulty over and above the English as
an additional language issues that we have in our school?” More [staff] are
asking that question and asking for information and then asking what they can
do about it, which I find very refreshing.’ Senior leader.
By autumn 2010, teachers were able to report as a result of changes made because
of Idp Cpd included increased pupils’ engagement in learning and improved social
and emotional aspects of learning. Taken together, these findings suggest that, in
time, pupils’ academic progress can be expected to improve measurably as a result
of improved teaching and learning prompted or reinforced by Cpd around the Idp.
Data indicative of such a trend from our qualitative sample schools were that:
• 14 targeted pupils met all their KS3 targets – (special school)
• After four weeks of daily small group work for Slcn with TA, the target pupils’
mean age score on Renfrew tests went up from age 3.5 to age 8.5 and this
translated into teachers reporting these children achieving ‘much better in
class’ – (infant and nursery school).
• Two pupils with dyslexia went up one full Nc level in end of topic tests when
assessed verbally rather than through written work – (secondary school)
• RAISEonline data showed that attainment gap between pupils at School
Action and those without SEN had closed – (secondary school).
Appendix 3 provides 10 examples of the Idp in practice in schools.
4.3.4 Impact on parental confidence
Evidence of the impact of school engagement with the Idp on parents was lacking at
LA level. In part, this was because of the perceived difficulties of generating this
evidence. Interviewees also considered ‘it was too early to say’. In consequence,
anecdotal evidence was typically provided, for example one LA lead reported: ‘the
parents … and it’s not an objective measure, but just feedback from the parents that
I’ve spoken to who’ve accessed those kind of programmes, are saying that they’re
really pleased, and that they feel … not that we’re looking at a skills base for parents
… but just that they have an increased awareness of the needs of their children, and
feel more reassured that they have at least an increased understanding of what they
can … and what’s possible in relation to support from themselves’. A more specific
example was provided by a lead, who noted the case of a transition strategy
informed by Idp training (Box 4.6).
Box 4.6 Parental confidence in school provision
‘One particular school used transition books between classes for specific [SEN] pupils. So children use transition books between classes, photos of new room, teacher, entrance doors, and carpet areas. They took it home for the summer, and parents thought they were great, with children making smoother transitions to new classes’, LA lead.
However, we had built in a plan to seek parents’ opinions directly. It was recognised
that this was a challenge as a school-based Cpd initiative was unlikely to be salient
to parents. Nevertheless, we considered it important to attempt to seek parents’
views of this major initiative. All of the original sample schools except the special
school (i.e. 27 of 28 schools) were asked in summer 2009 (i.e. the first school year of
the Idp) if it would be possible for us to interview either face to face or over the
phone up to three parents of pupils with different levels of needs (school action,
school action plus, statement) related to whichever of the Idp modules the school
had worked on. The response from schools was that it was far too early to speak to
parents about anything related to the Idp. As this was also the message from LA Idp
leads, we delayed this part of the evaluation until the second annual set of school
interviews in autumn 2009. This time, we deliberately asked for parents that the
school thought were satisfied with the provision made for their son or daughter as we
wanted to explore what worked well in supporting parents of pupils with high
incidence SEND. We assured the school that the interview would not be conducted
on the basis that the parents would be expected to know about the Idp; rather the
focus was on the relationship between parents of children with SEND and schools.
This time, the request elicited 18 parents from 10 schools (nine primary and one
secondary). In autumn 2010, we asked again to speak to parents on the same basis
as before. This elicited interviews with eleven parents (all mothers) from five schools.
In total, we spoke to 29 parents (26 mothers, two fathers and one grandmother), a
much smaller sample that we had originally hoped for. In 2009, all the parents were
interviewed by phone. In 2010, all the parents were interviewed face to face during
visits to the case study schools.
The key message from parents
What gave parents confidence that their child’s school could meet their child’s needs
was very simple: that teachers and/or senior leaders, preferably both, were willing to
meet with them and to hear their story and their views about their child; that teachers
listened and took seriously what they communicated about their child; that often
relatively simple adaptations were made to accommodate their child’s learning needs
(e.g. alternative ways of recording what they knew); that their child’s strengths were
recognised and communicated to child, peers and parents; and that the social and
emotional impacts of learning difficulties were recognised and addressed.
Specific examples of impact of Idp Cpd
Although only one of the parents we spoke to had heard of the Idp (a parent
governor), because we had interviewed school staff too, it was sometimes possible to
link specific improvements that the parents mentioned to the Idp work in the school.
For example, following work on the dyslexia module, one school had introduced
digital recorders to enable children to speak their answers instead of having to write
them down. This was something the parent mentioned as having had a positive effect
on her son. In another case, having done work on the Besd module, a teacher
invited in the mother of twins showing withdrawn behaviour. The mother spoke about
how pleased she was about this as she had had no idea there was a problem at
school and had never before dared to talk to any teacher about the domestic violence
she had suffered and fled from. Both teacher and parent described independently the
growing trust between them as they worked together to improve the twins routines at
home, attendance at school, and their learning and social interaction in both home
and school. The parent did not know that this approach was a result of the Idp
training but the teacher knew that without that she would not have considered quiet,
withdrawn behaviour as Besd and the twins’ progress would have been hampered.
Appendix 4 gives some examples of pupil and parent voice about the Idp.
4.4 Benefits to LAs
The LA leads were uniformly clear that the Idp had brought a range of benefits to
LAs as it was a successful method of Cpd that supported quality first and teaching
and collaboration. In particular, the Idp Cpd had:
• Improved liaison between Idp engaged schools and LA agencies.
• Promoted a common focus between SEN services and school improvement
with an emphasis on teaching and learning.
• Provoked SEN support service teachers to look at Wave 1 rather than just
individual pupil work.
• Enabled a revision of LA core training as part of providing a step approach to
levels of training.
• Provided a framework for sharing with schools that has instigated discussion
relating to the support of pupils with high incidence SEN at Wave 1 and by so
doing, confirmed the need for all teachers to have the skills and knowledge to
respond to the needs of children with SEN.
• Helped promote links between different LA agencies, for example, between
SEN support services and Asd outreach teams.
• Reduced the need for LA intervention as Idp engaged schools take up more
wave 1 SEND support
• Has supported an improved Cpd offer for school staff.
LA leads were particularly pleased about the wider impact of the Idp, which, they
typically argued, extended well beyond schools. In some cases, the leads expressed
pleasant surprise at the extent of the impact; with, for example, one lead noting some
important strategic impacts (Box 4.7).
Box 4.7 LA impact of the Idp
‘The Idp has provided a catalyst, amongst one or two other things, for collaborative working across the standards part of local authorities and the support part of local authorities and I don’t think that was envisaged. I think it’s raised the status of SEN, it’s produced discussions with people who are involved in workforce performance training across the piece and it’s really provided an opportunity for colleagues to work together on a range of things, the start point of which was the Idp, but the development of which was a range of harder hitting things beyond that – strategically how can we impact on schools, strategically how can we influence Cpd colleagues, so I think it’s gone beyond its remit actually, which is really encouraging,’ LA lead
4.5 Sustainability
The LA Idp lead interviewees provided a range of accounts concerning the
sustainability of the Idp. A small minority of LA leads were not optimistic about
sustainability. One lead, believed that as there was no statutory requirement for
schools to engage with the Idp, little more would be achieved in the future. Similarly,
another lead argued that sustainability lay entirely in schools’ hands, and she was,
therefore, unable to make any assessment as to likely levels of sustainability.
However, the majority of leads outlined strategies that had been adopted to increase
the likelihood of Idp sustainability. These strategies included building the dyslexia
module into Dyslexia Friendly Status requirements, incorporating the As module into
the LA’s Autism Outreach Team’s action plan, the incorporation of all the modules
into the Nqt induction programme, support for As, Besd, and dyslexia champions
in schools, and making Idp usage a requirement prior to LA support being offered to
schools. One lead, provided an eight part sustainability check list which incorporated
these strategies (Box 4.8).
Box 4.8 Eight elements to enhance Idp sustainability; an example from
one LA
1) All centrally based SEN courses have the Idp modules built in as part of core content including the National Award for SENCOs. 2) The LA guidance criteria for School Action and School Action Plus has the Idp referenced in each as expected actions for schools to have covered. 3) All LA monitoring of specialist mainstream SEN provisions (As, dyslexia, Besd, Slcn) has the Idp included as part of the self evaluation tool for schools to complete as part of the visit related to records of training for staff. 4) Outreach providers have the Idp referenced as part of their accreditation. 5) Lead teachers being identified in some schools and reported in SEN Newsletters as available contacts as the LA SEN service is diminished post March 2011. 6) SEN services (specialist teacher advisers, EPs, Bst, SEN support teachers) are charged with completing the modules and being familiar with their content as part of their core work. 7) The LA Nqt induction programme 2011-2012 will include the Idp as core training in addition to awareness raising (2009-10). 8) Two county wide briefings (March 2011) for head teachers, senior leaders, induction leads, Cpd leads and LA service leads across all phases entitled.
4.6 Summary of key points
In this section we summarise the main points arising from our study and the
implementation of the Idp. We take these up again in the Discussion where we
consider these specific points within a broader framework.
• The IDP-related Cpd was effective in raising the knowledge, understanding
and confidence to teach pupils with targeted SEND for the majority of
teachers involved.
• LAs varied in their approach to collecting impact data but most concentrated
on impact on school staff and teaching rather than on pupils or parents.
• The main motivations to engage with the Idp (a voluntary take-up initiative)
were: a desire to improve teaching and learning practice; a desire to enhance
existing inclusive practice in order to gain external recognition; and a desire to
refresh and reinvigorate existing inclusive practice.
• The LA played a crucial role in informing schools about the Idp and
introducing school representatives (usually SENCOs) to each module in turn.
Schools valued and benefitted from LA specialists supporting in-school Cpd
and from LA support for SENCOs to gain the knowledge and confidence to
deliver IDP-related Cpd in school
• Initial take-up of the dyslexia and Slcn modules was affected by
presentational and some content problems (see Interim Report for details);
both were revised during the life of the evaluation but the ‘refreshed’ versions
were not in schools or LAs in time for views about them to be included in the
evaluation
• Over time, school leaders in the sample began to see and articulate over-
arching school aims that were being supported and developed through use of
the Idp
• The type and quality of the Cpd activity around the Idp was a main factor in
determining its effectiveness in promoting enhanced teaching and learning
• Effective Cpd in this respect was tailored to the school context; included all
teachers and TAs; was a process over time and not a single event; had a
clear focus on immediate relevance to improved practice with specific pupils,
as well as all pupils, in mind; and provided further information and resources
to which teachers could refer at a later date.
• The Idp modules were also reported as effective for independent use where
a staff member needed to skill up around teaching and learning for a specific
pupil or pupils in their class or to bring new members of staff up to speed with
colleagues.
• Year on year, the evaluation has found greater and more embedded impact
on teaching practice.
• There is limited evidence so far of impact on pupils’ academic progress.
However, there was more reporting of regular monitoring of pupil progress
against targets and of linking failure to reach targets with a responsibility to
make the teaching and learning approaches more accessible to the learner, in
order to support progress. Positive impacts on the social and emotional
aspects of learning were reported. Taken together, these two findings suggest
that, in time, measurable improvements in pupils’ academic progress can be
expected as a result of improved teaching and learning prompted or
reinforced by Cpd around the Idp.
• There was reported evidence that use of the Idp had improved teachers’
practice when working with TAs.
• There was also reported evidence of improved communication with parents,
corroborated by the sample of parents interviewed.
• As well as specific module-related improvements, school staff reported wider
benefits from engaging with the Idp over time. These included greater
Views of parents
• Parents valued school staff that were willing to meet with them, to hear their
story and their views about their child, to take these views seriously and act
upon them.
• Parents valued the straightforward adaptations and adjustments to teaching
and learning practice that the Idp promoted. For example, offering alternative
ways of recording learning to a pupil who finds writing difficult.
• Parents valued when their child’s strengths were recognised and
communicated to the child and others.
• Parents valued when the social and emotional aspects of learning difficulties
were acknowledged and addressed.
5. Stammering Information Programme
Main findings
• 97% of speech and language therapists judged that the Stammering
Information Programme had changed teachers’ understanding of stammering.
• 97% of SLTs and 98% of teachers judged the Sip accessible, informative and
relevant to classroom practice.
• International experts also judged the Sip very positively.
5.1 Introduction
The Stammering Information Programme (Sip) was developed by the Michael Palin
Centre during 2010. A Dvd ‘Wait, wait I’m not finished yet….’ was produced to
provide support for teachers. This includes a 10 minute and a 20 minute version of a
video of pupils who stammer. In addition, resources to support pupils who stammer
can be printed. The Dvd comprises an introduction by Michael Palin followed by a
number of brief comments from children and young people who stammer. These are
directed at teachers, with direct comments on both the challenges and difficulties
faced, and also guidance on positive practice. The importance of speech and
language therapy is also discussed by the young people.
Six out of ten of NQTs that responded to our 2011 survey (see Section 3.3.2) noted
that information about stammering would be of interest, and 38% reported having
experience of teaching at least one child who stammered. The Michael Palin Centre
suggests that about 5 per cent of children stammer and about 1 per cent continue to
do so as adults.
Dissemination across England began in September 2009 and completed in
December 2010. A number of different methods were used, direct to the education
workforce, via speech and language therapists (SLTs), via clients and their families
who attended the Michael Palin Centre, and through websites and the media. Within
education, special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) were a key resource to
be targeted as they would advise and pass on information within schools. Similarly,
SLTs visiting schools were able to access teachers. Special events, both regional
conferences and sessions at the Michael Palin Centre, provided further opportunities.
Websites included the Centre’s own www.stammeringcentre.org and access through
other organisations including the British Stammering Association was negotiated.
Inputs were also made direct to courses of initial teacher training and courses for
trainee speech and language therapists. Articles in Special (November 2010),
Special Children (Oct/Nov 2010) and Speaking Out (Winter 2010) also provided
information.
By the autumn of 2010, 4975 DVDs of the original 6000 had been disseminated: over
2000 direct to SLTs and education professionals, about 400 to higher education ITT
programmes, over 500 in bulk mail outs to schools and over 100 to parents of
children who stammer24.
In this section we report on the feedback from a survey of 565 professionals who had
accessed the Sip. Three quarters (74%) were speech and language therapists
(SLTs), with a quarter (26%) teachers or otherwise engaged in education.
5.2 Means of access
Over half of the SLTs became aware of the Sip through the profession, an Slt
colleague (25%), special interest group (22%) or professional journal (12%). The
most common source for teachers was through a conference (33%). Conferences
were important for accessing the DVDs themselves (27% SLTs, 32% teachers) as
they were provided on the day. The Michael Palin Centre itself was also a source:
15% of SLTs accessed the Dvd when attending training there; 40% of teachers
applied direct. The Centre’s website also made an important contribution (13% SLTs,
8% teachers).
5.3 Use of the Sip
At the time of the survey, six out of ten SLTs and teachers had had access to the Sip
for 6 months or more. Half (49%) of the SLTs had used the materials with children,
42% with parents and over half (55%) had used the Sip with teachers.
Over 97% of SLTs considered that the Sip had changed teachers’ understanding of
children who stammer compared with 78% of teachers who reported that their
24 Michael Palin Centre: Stammering Information Programme Phase Four Progress Report October to December 2010.
understanding had changed (Table 5.1). These are both positive findings but t-tests
indicated that the SLTs were significantly more positive (p < .001) about the Sip’s
impact on teachers’ understanding than teachers themselves.
Table 5.1 The impact of the Stammering Information Programme on
teachers’ understanding of children who stammer
(% respondents)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
SLTs 2 0.4 61 36
Teachers 2 19 60 19
About eight out of ten SLTs and teachers had shared the Sip with colleagues. In both
cases there was a spread: about a third had shared resources with five or fewer, but
43% SLTs and 46% teachers had shared with 10 or more colleagues.
5.4 The quality of the Sip material
Almost all SLTs (97%) and teachers (98%) were positive about the Sip materials in
terms of accessibility, providing information about children who stammer and being
relevant to classroom practice. As indicated in Figure 5.1, SLTs were more likely than
teachers to ‘strongly agree’ as opposed to just ‘agree’ with the positive rating in
respect of each dimension.
Figure 5.1 Speech and language therapists’ and teachers’ judgements about the quality of the Sip (%)
In addition to our survey results, we also asked five international experts, from
Australia, Israel and the Usa, to comment on the Sip. The four who responded were
uniformly positive, enthusiastic even, about the materials: ‘a valuable resource’; ‘an
extraordinary tool of advocacy’; ‘an excellent resource for parents and teachers’; ‘the
response to the video (by student teachers) was amazingly positive’; ‘I would hope
this resource would form part of the education of all teachers of children across the
age spectrum’. They looked forward to using it in their own contexts – one had
already started to do so – and affirmed the need for materials such as this. This
would suggest that there are no equivalent resources at the moment and that there is
considerable potential for the Sip to be disseminated worldwide.
A number of suggestions were made for enhancing the usefulness of the materials. A
parent/teacher viewing guide and a classroom instructional guide would enhance
understanding and lead to more meaningful learning experiences. The use of text
headings on the Dvd was proposed as a means of signposting the information being
conveyed. Finally, it was suggested that any further work locate stammering within a
communication continuum, showing for instance the normal dysfluency that occurs in
typical speech as well as severe stammering that includes blocking and physical tics.
5.5 Conclusions
• The Stammering Information Programme is a valuable resource for teachers
and speech and language therapists.
• There are no equivalent materials currently available, and there is opportunity
for wide scale dissemination.
• Most SLTs responding to a questionnaire had shared the materials with a
colleague. Almost half had done so with ten or more colleagues.
• Almost all SLTs responding said that the Sip changed teachers’
understanding of children who stammer. Likewise, almost all were positive
about the Programme, in terms of accessibility, informativeness and
relevance to classroom practice.
• A large majority of teachers responding said that the Sip changed their
understanding of children who stammer. Almost all were positive about the
Programme.
• Independent experts consulted about the programme were unanimous in
endorsing its value. They made a number of suggestions for enhancing its
use in practice.
6. Specialist Qualifications
Main Findings
• The scheme for funding of training for mandatory qualifications for specialist
teachers of pupils with sensory impairment was highly successful:
o Trainees were of appropriate calibre
o It attracted younger teachers
o The supply of teachers to this vulnerable group of pupils with low
incidence needs was greatly increased
• Trainees were very positive about the scheme; without it, two thirds would not
have been able to train
• Trainees had very high levels of satisfaction with the quality of their course:
o 98% judged it effective or very effective
o Practical activities and academic level were positively rated by 92%
and 94% respectively
• 99% of schools have a SENCO but this was not always a qualified teacher,
especially in secondary schools
• The SENCO is a member of the senior management team in 76% of primary
but only 56% of secondary schools.
• These findings support the government’s policy of mandatory qualifications
for teachers working as SENCOs and with pupils with low incidence SEND.
6.1 Introduction
Most of the initiatives reported so far have addressed universal, Wave 1 provision.
Both ITT and Cpd initiatives have been aimed at all teachers. However, a
comprehensive approach to pupils with SEND requires action to support the
development of specialist teacher skills. The main role to which this applies is the
special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) who has an important leadership
role in all schools. In addition, there is a need for specialist teachers to support pupils
with complex, low incidence needs. In both cases there is an argument for mandatory
qualifications, for SENCOs and specialist teachers of pupils with low incidence
needs. In this section we report on a) a scheme to fund places for teachers to take a
mandatory qualification for teaching pupils with hearing, visual or multisensory
impairments, and b) a study of the qualifications and status of the SENCO workforce.
6.2 Mandatory qualifications funded places scheme for specialist teachers
of pupils with sensory impairment
6.2.1 Introduction
Teachers of classes of children and young people with hearing impairment (Hi),
visual impairment (Vi) and multi-sensory impairment (Msi) are required25 to hold
qualified teacher status, plus a specialist qualification known as the mandatory
qualification for teachers of pupils with sensory impairments (SI). These teachers
must gain the mandatory qualification within three years of taking up the post.
Although the mandatory nature of the qualification is limited to ‘teachers of classes’ of
children and young people with sensory impairment, the government expects26 Hi, Vi
and Msi teachers employed in local authority support and advisory services to have
the qualification, as well as those teachers working with children and young people
with SI in Early Years or post-16 settings. In addition, if it appears that a child being
assessed for a statement of special educational need has sensory difficulties, then
the local authority must obtain educational advice from a teacher with the Vi or Hi
mandatory qualification (SEN Code of Practice, 7.84)27
In England, ten training courses leading to a mandatory qualification have been
approved by the Secretary of State. Eight of these are based in higher education
institutions (HEIs) and two are partnerships of special schools and HEIs. Five are
approved for the mandatory qualification in Hi, three for Vi and two for Msi. To gain
the qualification, as a minimum, students must meet specified outcomes in relation to
professional attributes, professional knowledge and understanding, and professional
skills 28.
The funded places scheme supported a two-year, part-time mandatory qualification
course which ran from both September 2009 and September 2010. It provided
£26000 per student, paid to the provider, to cover fees, supply cover (at £150 per
day), study leave, travel and resources. It was the provider’s responsibility to ensure
that the appropriate payments were received by schools, local authorities and
25 Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1662, the Education (School Teachers’ Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003 26 DfES letter, April 2003, explaining the purposes of regulations 6-9 in the Education (School Teachers’ Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003 27 Code of Practice 28http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/sen-and-disability/specialist- skills/mandatory-qualifications-course-providers.aspx (last accessed 15.2.11)
teachers. The specific impetus for the scheme came from two main sources –
responses to a Tda consultation in 2009 around reviewing the mandatory
qualification specification and a 2009 Tda survey of local authorities. The
consultation29 raised a number of issues including the perception that delegated
funding to schools had led to a reduction in demand for the mandatory qualification
(Mq) and concerns about the age profile of Mq teachers, as well as suggestions as
to how to ensure continued supply of specialist, Mq teachers for the future. The Tda
survey 2009 showed30 that there was demand for teachers with mandatory
qualifications and that retirements over a five year period would reduce the numbers
available. The funded places scheme was set up to attract more teachers to take the
qualifications. It was not open to those already on such a course.
Based on responses to the Tda survey, LAs were allocated a quota of places to
match expressed need. In total, this was 129 places (52 for Vi, 44 for Hi and 33 for
Msi). In fact, demand was greater than this and a total of 188 funded places were
agreed across 72 LAs (80 for Hi, 75 for Vi and 33 for Msi)31. It was LAs’
responsibility to ensure applications were made to the relevant provider. In 2009,
nine of the 10 providers had students on the scheme; in 2010, all 10 had at least one
student funded through the scheme.
The evaluation was designed to assess take up and impact of the funded places
scheme. One course leader from nine of the ten mandatory qualification (Mq)
courses agreed to be interviewed. To preserve interviewee anonymity in a very small
cohort, these course leaders are referred to by a code number (1-9 assigned
randomly) and not by their area of specialism (Hi, Vi or Msi). For the same reason,
when presenting direct quotations references to specific impairments have been
changed to the generic term ‘sensory impairment’. The views of students were
gathered via an online survey supported by eight of the ten courses. Responses
were received from 50 Mq students (13% response), 32 (64%) of whom had a TDA-
scheme funded place. Responding students were studying for each of the three
MQs, the majority for the Hi Mq (n = 22, 44%), with over a third (n = 19, 38%)
studying for the Msi Mq and under a fifth studying for the Vi Mq (n = 9, 18%). There
29http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/sen-and-disability/specialist- skills/mandatory-qualifications-course-providers.aspx, p38 (last accessed 15.2.11) 30 E-mail from Tda to local authorities, May 2009 31 Information provided to research team by Tda.
were no statistically significant differences in responses between the groups so data
are presented from the combined groups of students.
The results of this survey need to be interpreted as a snapshot taken part-way
through the respective Mq courses (the second term of Year 1 for 23 and of Year 2
for 27 Mq students). To preserve anonymity and to maintain the focus on the funded
places scheme, rather than on the Mq courses per se, no analysis was done by
provider.
6.2.2 Providers’ views
Necessity of the scheme and its take up
Eight of the nine course leaders interviewed agreed that the funded places scheme
was necessary, given the shortage, and aging demographic, of qualified teachers in
sensory impairments. The ninth was less convinced of the necessity per se but
welcomed the scheme as having, ‘picked up some really excellent people who I think
wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do this if there hadn’t been additional funding’
Overall, it was valued as a successful way of having ‘attracted younger people into
an ageing profession’ and as having ‘recognised the field’.
The course leaders considered that the scheme had generally been successful in
funding teachers who were of at least equal calibre to the normal student intake for
the MQs. Three course leaders thought all their TDA-funded students fitted this
description (‘all excellent’, ‘I’m very impressed with the calibre of people who were
put forward’, ‘they are pretty much our typical group’). The other five course leaders
reported their perceptions that those who had received TDA-funded places included
a small minority (one or two or three students respectively) with whom they were less
happy. However, this was attributed more to the timing of the invitation to LAs
(especially in Year 2 of the scheme when it was summer 2010) which meant that, for
example, a person was nominated without the normal processes of discussion and
agreement between employer (school and LA) and the course provider. The majority
of the funded students were described very positively though: for example, ‘I’ve been
really, really pleased with them’.
Impact on course numbers
According to the course leaders, the funded places scheme had varying impacts on
course numbers (but this did not equate to differentials by type of sensory
impairment). For three providers, the scheme had increased take up of their Mq, in
one case doubling it. Another three providers reported limited impact on numbers
explaining, respectively, that only one LA from the region had taken advantage of the
scheme, and, in two cases, that numbers had increased a little but included people
that would have been funded by their employers in future years or ‘should’ have been
funded by their special school under mandatory requirements. The remaining three
providers argued that it had had no impact on their course uptake, in two cases
because those funded via the scheme would have been funded in due course by
their employers, and in one case because the scheme only compensated for a drop
in students normally funded from another country currently experiencing financial
problems.
All nine course providers expected their course numbers to drop for the September
2011 intake and expressed degrees of concern about this. Although it was
recognised that this was partly an unintended consequence of the TDA-funded
places scheme (because employers had fast-tracked people for the Mq during the
period of the scheme that they would have funded themselves in later years), course
leaders were much more concerned about the impact on prospective students for the
Mq of the current situation where LAs were having to make large cuts.
‘[The effect of] local authority cuts varies quite considerably. We had a head
of service conference not long ago and in some authorities it’s a terrible
situation where teachers are being made redundant and in others there is no
difference. But [in named LA] they aren’t able to fund any places for training
and they do need to train somebody next year but they can’t afford it. So I
think it will make a difference [to the 2011 intake].’ Tutor
There was also, however, a sense that the 2011 intake might be the one most
affected by the combination of LA cuts and the end of the Tda scheme and that
numbers would stabilise again after that simply because the MQs were mandatory
and valued.
Perceived benefits and drawbacks of the scheme
Asked to sum up the benefits, if any, of the scheme, the majority of the course
providers (7 of 9) reported that it has been successful in its main aim of reducing the
average age of their student cohort. In addition, providers mentioned the benefits
related to simply having a larger intake on the course, for example, improved group
dynamics; more children and young people with sensory impairment receiving
support from current students who would become qualified; a wider range of LAs
would soon have a teacher qualified in Msi (not a requirement under the Code of
practice, unlike for Vi and Hi); and more mainstream teachers having had the
opportunity to become qualified as specialists in Hi, Vi or Msi.
Five drawbacks were each mentioned by a minority (no more than three) of the
course providers. These were: the unintended effect of reducing numbers taking up
the Mq in 2011; the timing of the invitation to LAs (particularly in 2010) which meant
that some LAs were unaware of the scheme or too late in finding out to take
advantage of it; the administrative difficulties of having to manage the money through
HEIs; the additional challenge to course providers in meeting the needs of ‘new
blood’ teachers some of whom arrived with no or very limited prior knowledge of
sensory impairment; and the climate of uncertain future employment prospects for
the Mq students, given the reported evidence that some LAs at least were cutting
staff in advisory and support services.
A minority of providers also expressed disappointment that the scheme had not been
more successful in bringing in teachers from mainstream schools. This was attributed
to some local authorities not recognising how much time it would need to negotiate
with mainstream schools:
‘Authorities’ ability to really get their act together and recognise how much
planning time you have to have if mainstream schools are going to release
their staff to do a course that will lead to them taking up another career -
ultimately, there’s a lot of negotiation around that because it’s potentially
disruptive to the mainstream school – and some local authorities, even
though they knew they’d got funding, got round to sorting that out very late.’
Tutor
Provider views about the place and future of the Mandatory Qualifications
All of the providers were articulate about the importance of maintaining the specialist
mandatory qualifications arguing that these courses produced much better teachers
for all students, as well as qualified teachers to enhance the educational outcomes of
the small minority of students with sensory impairment. There was discussion of how
the needs of children and young people in mainstream schools could be better
supported, with one person going so far as to argue that every sensory impaired child
should be supported by an Mq teacher (i.e. extending the mandatory nature beyond
‘classes’ of such pupils). Particular concern was expressed about these pupils in a
climate where LAs were reducing advisory and support services yet schools had not
yet adapted to the role of commissioners of teachers with specialist qualifications in
sensory impairment. The providers were united in their view that the Mq created
teachers who improved educational outcomes for pupils with sensory impairments.
‘The majority of [sensory impaired] children are in mainstream and are not
taught by [specialist Mq teachers]. Where it works, it’s great and where
children are not included, it’s disastrous. We should go regional. It’s all far too
small. I think the mandatory qualification is absolutely essential because it’s
so tiny, it’s so specialist. The technology changes […]. You’ve got to have
people who know what to do, how to manage. It isn’t about being a medic. It’s
about being in a classroom and getting the best out of it, or the best out of the
technology. It’s about ensuring children have people who can really look at
literacy, really look at language.’ Tutor
‘I think the role for specialist, if I can use that rather than the Mandatory
Qualification, has never been more important. If you think of the population
out there of [sensory impaired] people, children in particular, they are
incredibly disadvantaged. […] We’ve done a re-analysis of the government
statistics and if you [have one particular sensory impairment] only, you do
quite well. You’re progress is pretty well on a par with others. If you have one
additional need, your progress is very, very much downhill. So unless people
recognise and understand the needs of these children, that situation is
probably going to get worse because the percentage of children with
additional, and in many cases, multiple needs, is increasing.’ Tutor
It was also argued that the MQs had created a small body of research-active
academics that had extended and strengthened the body of knowledge across the
sensory impairment field and had enabled the courses to keep pace with the
advantages for children and young people with SI of new technologies as these
appeared.
6.2.3 Student views
The students
Most (92%) of the respondents were female (n = 46, 92%). They were drawn mainly
from three roles: teacher in special school (n = 18, 36%), teacher in LA support
service (n = 17, 34%) and teacher in mainstream school with specialist provision (n =
12, 24%). The other three respondents were: a teacher in a mainstream school, a
specialist teacher in an independent school, and a qualified teacher working as a TA
in a mainstream school with specialist provision.
Years of teaching experience ranged from 1-5 years (28% - the most frequent
response) to over 25 years (8%), with 22% having 6-10 years’ experience, 16%
having 11-15 years’ and 18% having 16-25 years’ experience. The quarter having
five or fewer years of experience bears out course leaders’ perceptions that their
current cohorts included more less experienced teachers than before the funded
places scheme (this group were evenly split at 28% each of the TDA-funded and
other funded students).
The funded places scheme
Of the 32 (64%) who were funded by the Tda scheme, the majority (22) said that,
without the scheme, they would have been unable to take the mandatory
qualification. Only three reported that, without the scheme, they would have been
funded by their LA and only one person said that, without the scheme, s/he would
have been funded by her/his school. Six respondents respectively (not the same
people each time) indicated that they would ‘possibly’ have received funding to do
the course from either their employer (school or LA) or have self-funded). These
findings suggests that, overall, the scheme was successful in attracting ‘new blood’ to
the MQs but also reflects the course provider view reported above that a minority of
TDA-funded places were taken by candidates who would otherwise have been
funded by their employer.
A third of students indicated that the main factor underpinning their choice to take the
Mq was that it was a personal career development goal to gain the qualification.
Most (13/17) of these students were TDA-funded. Over a quarter said that the main
factor was that they needed the qualification for their current job. This response
divided equally between TDA-funded and other students Figure 6.1
The funding was intended to cover fees, supply cover, study leave, travel and
resources. The respondents indicated that this was the case with the exception of the
difficulty in obtaining cover supply for certain roles. All of the Tda funded Mq
students reported that the funding had been used to pay their course fees but 12
(over a third) reported problems with the use of the funding to pay for supply cover.
Details given in open answers indicated that the main issue was the
difficulty/impossibility of finding cover for those in peripatetic support and advisory
roles. Nine out of the ten reported that travel and resources were appropriately paid
for from the funding in the view of the majority (90%) but a minority of three reported
that whereas travel was funded, resources (i.e. books) were not.
Box 6.1 presents comments about the impact of the scheme are reproduced here to
give a flavour of what it meant to recipients.
Box 6.1 Views of Mandatory Qualification students
‘I could not have attended this course without this funding. Even though I have been in the ‘business’ of SEN for many years, the course is already impacting on my practice and hopefully making a difference to the children and families that I work with.’ ‘If I had had to pay for this course myself, I would never have done it as the commitment required by the job and the course is just too much to take on. As it is “free” for me, I don’t have to worry about the financial side of things and my school gives me the day off to go to university as and when needed. I love it. I am so glad I had this chance because I would not have explored this career if it had not come to me with such a package!’ ‘It is great that the Tda have funded places on the course and made it easier for my LA to support my desire to do the course.’ ‘There is a great need for teachers able to support SEN and I was very grateful for this opportunity to increase my skills. The course has been excellent.’ ‘This course has already proved to be invaluable for the other staff at our school as I am to do a training session for them on the things I have already learned and it will impact the Hi students they work with daily.’ ‘Without the funding I would not have been able to start the course. My workplace have found it very difficult to recruit qualified teachers of the deaf as there is such a shortage.’
Of the 18 respondents who were not funded through the Tda scheme, half (n = 9,
59%) were funded by their school, and over a quarter (n = 5, 28%) by their LA. The
remainder were funded by a combination of sources (n = 3) or self-funded (n = 1).
This reflects the norm for funding as reported by course leaders, that is, that most
Mq students are funded by their employer and a very small minority self-fund.
Figure 6.1 Main factors in student taking the mandatory qualification
The course experience There was a high level of satisfaction with their Mq course so far (Table 6.1): over 9
out of 10 were positive about academic level and practical activities.
Table 6.1 Student satisfaction so far with aspects of their Mq course Course aspect Mean level of
satisfaction
Sd
Academic level 4.58 .67
Applicability to current role 4.44 .70
Face to face delivery 4.31 .71
Practical activities required 4.27 .82
Distance learning delivery 3.96 .96
Note: 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied. Students’ views were gathered before the courses ended (Term 2 of Year 1 or Year 2).
The majority (98%) also rated the course as effective or very effective in improving
their knowledge, skills and understanding in relation to specific aspects of teaching,
as shown by the high mean scores in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Student rating of effectiveness so far of aspects of their Mq course
Course aspect Mean level of
effectiveness
Sd
Increasing your knowledge and understanding of pupils with (as applicable, Vi, Hi, Msi)
4.64 .53
Increasing your repertoire of specialist teaching skills for pupils with (as applicable, Vi, Hi, Msi)
4.30 .81
Improving your assessment of pupils with (as applicable, Vi, Hi, Msi)
4.30 .68
Increasing curriculum access for pupils with (as applicable, Vi, Hi, Msi)
4.26 .75
Note: 1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied. Students’ views were gathered before the courses ended (Term 2 of Year 1 or Year 2).
Students were also asked about how they intended to use the Mq after gaining the
award. The most frequent response was ‘to enhance ability to do current job’ (n = 41,
87%). Under a half (n = 22, 44%) indicated they would use the Mq ‘to enhance
prospects of promotion/career development’ and about a third (n = 17, 34%) that they
would use it ‘to enable moving to a more specialist role’. In open answers, other
possibilities were described, including using it during voluntary work abroad, going on
to do research in SI, and using it to enhance services for SI children in mainstream.
One person wrote that ‘a lack of employment opportunities and funding for centrally
paid advisory staff’ would affect use of the Mq.
Enquiries were made through course leaders as to the feasibility of speaking face to
face or by telephone with any of the funded students. In the end, one funded student
was interviewed by phone and gave permission for her case to be used as an
anonymised case study of the scheme’s impact (Box 6.2).
Box 6.2 The impact of the TDA-funded place on an Mq for hearing impairment
Anne [a pseudonym] works in a large, generic special school. On roll, there are 17 hearing impaired students. The LA has a Hi advisory teacher who visits the school. Anne’s school was sent a letter from the LA explaining about the Mq funded places scheme. Her manager asked her if she would be interested as she had previously taught a hearing impaired student who used a radio system. Anne was very aware that, without the funded scheme, she ‘most definitely’ would not have had the opportunity: ‘it was the fact that it was funded that made my school allow me to go.’ One of the first things Anne did was ask her colleagues to complete a survey. This showed that among a staff of over 200, four had received some training about the use and care of hearing aids but none of these taught the Hi pupils and no one was a qualified teacher of the deaf. The survey generated interest and helped to highlight Anne’s new role as ‘an advocate’ for the Hi pupils in the school. This created an ‘open door’ for her to share her learning with colleagues. For example, she created a PowerPoint session to share information with TAs about the use and care of hearing aids including ‘how to put in a battery, how to know which hearing aid goes in which ear’. Anne also quickly realised that the quality of her teaching for all pupils was benefitting from what she learned on her Mq course: ‘having just one semester of exposure to the hearing impaired world has made such a difference in my teaching already’. As an example, Anne talked about how, as the literacy coordinator for the school, she could incorporate what she had learned about the use of visuals to support language for Hi students across all her literacy planning. She planned to incorporate the use of visual objects and aids to accompany stories; ‘that’s something that is going to enhance all of the students’ learning, not only the hearing impaired students’. She had also learned on the Mq course about the value of using objects, pictures, symbols and labels in her teaching. Summing up, she said that the funding to enable her to take the Mq in Hi had caused ‘a huge change to the advantage of the students because [previously] no-one paid attention to their hearing impairment because there were so many other special needs. I said, ‘You don’t understand. They’re not accessing anything that you’re doing if they can’t hear you.’
6.3 The special educational needs coordinator
The Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) is a key professional for the
successful education of pupils with SEND. Their responsibility may include direct
support for individual pupils, support for staff working with pupils with SEND, acting
as the school’s interface with parents, outside professionals and the local authority,
and undertaking a senior management role within the school. The role has developed
over the years since it was first introduced following the Education Act 1993 and the
first Code of Practice in 1994 (Department for Education and Employment, 1994).
Lindsay (1997) wrote that this new professional had:
‘a formidable list of responsibilities. From being a marginal person in many
schools, the teacher with responsibility for SEN soon became a central and
key member of the management system’ (p.21-22).
Initially SENCOs were appointed from within the staff: there were no training
requirements. Subsequently, support for SENCOs has increased and since 2009 all
SENCOs new to the role are required to undertake training as a mandatory
requirement to carry out the role in a school.
Towards the end of our evaluation of this initiative the DfE commissioned additional
work. A survey to explore the proportion of SENCOs that are a) qualified teachers
and b) members of the senior management team was undertaken as part of our
Teacher Voice survey in November 2010, which also explored the development of
the Idp.
Almost all schools reported that they had a SENCO (Table 6 .1). However, whereas
the SENCO was a qualified teacher in 98 per cent of primary schools, only 87 per
cent of respondents from secondary schools stated that their SENCO was a qualified
teacher (Table 6.2). This very low figure is partly a result of 7 per cent of respondents
responding ‘don’t know/not sure’; nevertheless, a further 7 per cent stated that the
SENCO was not a qualified teacher compared with 2 per cent in primary schools.
These findings must be treated with some caution as the secondary results are likely
to reflect greater communication difficulties in the larger secondary schools.
Nevertheless, these results are a concern.
Table 6.3 Is there a designated special educational needs coordinator
(SENCO) in your school?
% All % Primary % Secondary
Yes 99 99 99
No 1 1 1
Don’t know/Not sure <1 <1 <1
Local base (N) 2174 1202 966
Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100 Due to the primary, secondary and all teacher categories being weighted separately, the number of primary and secondary respondents may not sum to the number of teachers in total Source: Nfer Omnibus Survey November 2010
Table 6.4 Is the SENCO you identified a qualified teacher?
% All % Primary % Secondary
Yes 93 98 87
No 4 2 7
Don’t know/Not sure 3 1 7
Local base (N) 2076 1130 940
Note: See Table 6.3
Just over half (56%) of SENCOs were members of the senior management team in
the school (Table 6.3). Again, there was a substantial primary/secondary difference
of 76% v 29%. In these schools, SEND issues are the direct concern of the Smt and
so there is the possibility of high visibility. In the two thirds of secondary schools
where the SENCO is not a member of the Smt, SEND issues may not have that
immediacy and salience especially given the many other competing demands on
Smt time.
Table 6.5 Is the SENCO you identified a member of the senior management team in your school?
% All % Primary % Secondary
Yes 56 76 29
No 41 23 67
Don’t know/Not sure 3 1 4
Local base (N) 2174 1202 966
Note: See Table 6.3
6.4 Conclusions
Mandatory qualifications for specialist teachers of pupils with sensory impairments
• The scheme has been successful in attracting younger teachers into this
specialist area of work.
• Those receiving funded places were almost all judged to be of at least equal
calibre to other Mq students.
• The scheme impacted differentially across Mq providers – for some, it raised
take up of the courses substantially, for others the impact on numbers taking
up of the qualifications was limited or neutral.
• The majority of responding students who had been recipients of the scheme
would not have been able to take the qualification without the scheme’s
funding, confirming its success in widening access to the qualifications.
• The funding was being used as intended to cover fees, supply cover (where
this was available), study leave, travel and resources.
• The Mq course was having a beneficial impact on the students’ teaching
practice.
• It is unfortunate and unintended that the ending of the scheme was coinciding
with budget cuts affecting many local authorities which was expected to
reduce numbers applying for the Mq courses in September 2011.
• There is a continuing need for specialist, qualified teachers of pupils with
sensory impairment, particularly as the majority of such pupils are in
mainstream schools and as some local authorities are cutting advisory and
support services.
SENCOs
• Although 99% of schools have a SENCO, in a substantial number of schools
the SENCO is not a qualified teacher
o 2% of primary teachers and 7% of secondary teachers reported their
SENCO was not a qualified teacher
• Also, the SENCO is a member of the senior management/leadership team in
only 76% of primary and 29% of secondary schools.
• The introduction of a statutory requirement that the SENCO be a qualified
teacher and the National Award for SEN Coordinator introduced in 2009 are
positive actions to address the qualification issue. These actions should help
to raise the expertise and status of SENCOs and, as a consequence, make it
more likely that they are actively engaged in schools at a senior level
7. Discussion And Conclusions
7.1 The implications of our results for government policy
The DfE Investment in Initiatives Designed to Improve Teacher Workforce Skills in
Relation to SEN and Disabilities was a major project that arose out of the 2004
publication Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government’s Strategy for SEN.
This was an important statement of policy and of the means by which to put policy
into action. A fundamental component which drove the present project was the
importance of all teachers having core skills, some teachers in all schools having
advanced skills and some teachers in some schools having specialist skills.
The needs of all teachers may be specified more broadly. In addition to skills they
require knowledge, appropriate attitudes and then to exhibit the necessary behaviour
to put these into operation. Furthermore, confidence is important and may reasonably
be expected to improve as the other elements are addressed.
This initiative was also arguably unique, comprising:
• National initiatives that addressed the continuum from initial teacher training
(ITT) → the transition to teaching as a newly qualified teacher (Nqt) →
continuing professional development (Cpd).
• A complementary overlap of coverage supported by different materials, e.g.
for supporting pupils with dyslexia, Slcn, Besd and those on the autism
spectrum.
• A twin focus on both SEND and school improvement
• A main focus on Wave 1 support for all teachers in all schools supplemented
by support for specialist teachers working at Wave 3.
It was firmly grounded within a general policy framework that recognised the
importance of: quality teaching and learning, supported by effective teacher training
and continuing professional development:
• Support for all teachers in conjunction with specialist support for some
teachers,
• A continuum of support to match a continuum of needs,
• Recognising the important argument concerning the rights of pupils with
SEND to an effective education within an inclusive system, but one that
recognises individual needs (Lindsay, 2007).
• Drawing upon national expertise to produce and deliver materials
complemented by voluntary engagement according to schools’ priorities.
• National, regional and local support systems to facilitate and enhance
practice by ITT providers, LAs and schools.
Our evidence shows that the wide-ranging, comprehensive programme of
complementary initiatives has been very successful. We consider now the
implications of these findings with respect to the government’s proposals set out in
the Green Paper (DfE, 2011), referring to our evidence as appropriate.
Increasing support for all ITT trainees (paras 3.9 – 3.10)32
Our evidence shows clearly that ITT tutors and trainees valued the materials
provided through the Tda Toolkit. Providers integrated the materials into their
programmes allowing local determination of teaching but supported by high quality
support materials. Tutors welcomed both the materials and the opportunities to
network and support each other’s developments. Together with other initiatives (see
below) this also enhanced their own professional development.
Increasing trainee teachers’ awareness of special schools (para 3.11)
The Extended Placement in Specialist Settings initiative was highly successful with
almost all trainees rating this good or excellent. This opportunity allowed both
experience of special schools and specialist settings and, importantly, of pupils in
special schools and specialist settings. The benefits, therefore, include a greater first
hand understanding of the range of both pupils and provision. Indeed, these trainees
felt highly significantly better prepared as a result of the placement to teach pupils
with SEN that they would encounter in mainstream. Furthermore, undergraduate
trainees were more likely to consider incorporating into their career plans teaching in
specialist provision in mainstream schools or in special schools.
32 We provide reference to specific paragraphs in the Green Paper.
The proposal in the Green Paper (para 3.11) to provide additional funding for ITT
providers to secure ‘a greater number of placements for trainee teachers in special
school settings’ (emphasis added) is firmly supported by our evidence.
Increasing Cpd for teachers (para 3.13)
Paragraph 3.13 in the Green Paper recognises the importance of Cpd. Our evidence
shows that the development and roll out of the Inclusion Development Programme
(Idp) was very successful on a number of levels. The materials were valued. The
first version of the dyslexia and Slcn modules had limitations that may have been
obviated by a pilot but the producers of the autism spectrum and Besd modules
learned from these experiences; the initial views of the refreshed dyslexia and Slcn
materials were also positive. Our findings support the development and
dissemination of well designed, constructed and accessible materials produced by
experts drawing upon both academic and practical expertise. The Green Paper’s
commitment to make available free training materials on dyslexia, Slcn, autism
spectrum and Besd is supported by our evidence. This will ensure that those Idp
materials continue to be available. Our evidence of the success of the Stammering
Information Programme indicates that support for continuing dissemination should
also be made available. The Green Paper also states that the Tda will be asked to
commission online training materials for teachers about profound, multiple learning
disabilities, severe learning disabilities, and complex learning difficulties and
disabilities. Both of these proposals, therefore, are supported by our evidence.
However, our research also shows the crucial importance not only of the materials
but also of the process for dissemination. The Idp dissemination was welcomed by
head teachers who saw it as a positive venture that respected their right (and
responsibility) to make judgements for their school. Its voluntary nature was
important. But the dissemination also benefitted from a system of support that
included national leadership (commissioning the materials and support from the
National Strategies), regional support (through the regional hubs for SEN) and LA
support (through the Idp leads). These important process factors should be built into
dissemination plans: it will not be enough simply to make materials available. There
should also be a system of review to keep the information current.
Higher level specialist qualifications (para 3.14)
Our evidence has shown that the scheme to fund the training of specialist teachers
for pupils with sensory impairment is successful. Pupils with low incidence SEND
require specific consideration with respect to provision and teacher training.
Specialist skills and the development of specialist experience are crucial to meet
these pupils’ needs. These postgraduate qualifications will provide the necessary
training for specialist teachers. The proposed funding is necessary as our evidence
shows that most teachers on the mandatory qualification initiative would not have
taken the course otherwise.
Teacher network and Teaching Schools (paras 3.15 – 17)
Our research indicates the importance of networks and leadership within SEND. In
an inclusive education system, leadership will be necessary, and found, in both
mainstream and special schools. The importance of partnerships is recognised and
this was also supported by our study. A comprehensive approach to supporting
pupils with SEND requires action to support all three levels (the 3 Waves): for all
teachers in all schools, for some teachers in all schools; and specialists in some
schools. Local networks provide the basis for optimising this system. They maintain
local decision making and voluntary engagement, supported by accessing expertise.
SEND and leadership (paras 3.20 – 22)
The Idp project addressed both SEND and school improvement. Leadership is the
key to progress and the requirement that the National Professional Qualification for
Headship (Npqh) addresses SEN and disability appropriately is an important
development. The development of 5000 Specialist Leaders in Education is also
important if, as suggested, this fully includes those taking a leadership role for pupils
with SEND.
Special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs – paras 3.24 – 25)
Our research shows that not all SENCOs are qualified teachers and that SENCOs
are part of the senior management/leadership team in only 76% of primary, and 29%
of secondary schools. The new requirement that SENCOs are qualified teachers and
the £10 million to fund approved SENCO training are therefore timely. These will
enhance SENCOs’ expertise and status and may stimulate all schools to ensure that
the role of SENCO is regarded as central to school leadership.
Teaching assistants (para 3.27)
Support for pupils with SEND must be comprehensive and collegial, not the role of
individuals alone. Our research has shown that head teachers have a high regard for
TAs’ knowledge and skills to support pupils with SEND: 90% were confident that their
TAs had the knowledge for effective teaching of pupils with SEND. Effective use of
TAs requires training, support and an effective system of collaboration with teachers.
The proposed fund to support further training in SEND will build on our findings to
develop TAs into leadership roles.
Pupil attainment (para 3.32 on)
A key concern of the Green Paper is the need for pupils with SEND to have better
outcomes. Our study was not designed to examine pupil outcomes directly. However,
previous research has shown the importance of the factors that we have examined in
leading to improved pupil outcomes. These concern teacher attitudes, knowledge,
skills, confidence and behaviour. Our research has shown that all of these have been
positively enhanced by the overall programme. Furthermore, the case study material
provided by schools that undertook Idp training provides indicative evidence for
improved pupil outcomes. The current Achievement for All programme appears to be
having a positive effect and its evaluation will be important to see if this is indeed the
case.33 Our two studies, therefore, are complementary and, together, provide
evidence for training and school level action to support the improvement in outcomes
for pupils with SEND.
7.2 Conclusions This multi-faceted government initiative is possibly unique. It provided a
comprehensive programme of support to improve the attitudes, knowledge, skills,
confidence and behaviour of teachers with the aim of improving outcomes for pupils
with SEND. There are, of course, other factors including appropriate curricula and
facilities, parental confidence and support; but teachers are fundamental to improving
pupil outcomes. Our research has provided extensive evidence that the initiative has
been successful. We provide clear evidence for the proposals set out in the recent
Green Paper with respect to initial training and continuing professional development
of teachers.
33 An evaluation report was not yet available as our report was written.
References Bercow J (2008) The Bercow Report: A review of services for children and young
people (0-19) with speech, language and communication needs Nottingham:
Dcsf.
Department for Education (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special
educational needs and disability. A Consultation. Cm8027. Norwich: The
Stationery Office.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007). The Children’s plan: Building
brighter futures. Cm 7280.
http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/The_Childrens
_Plan.pdf (Accessed 21.3.2011).
Department for Education and Employment (1997). Excellence for all children:
Meeting special educational needs. London: The Stationery Office.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) Achievement for all: Local
authority prospectus. Nottingham: Dcsf
http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/189431
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009). Your child, your school, our
future: Building a 21st century school system. Cm 7588. Norwich: The
Stationery Office
http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/Cm%2075
88 (accessed 21.2.2011).
Dockrell, J.E. (2009) Causes of delays and difficulties in writing development. In R.
Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand, and J. Riley ( Eds.) Sage Handbook of Writing
Development. pp 489-505.
Humphrey, N. & Squires, G. (20120), Achievement for all evaluation: Interim report
(May 2010).
http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-
RR028.pdf
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive
education/mainstreaming, British Journal of Educational Psychology. 77, 1-
24.
Lindsay, G., Cullen, M.A.., Cullen, S., Dockrell, J.E., Goodlad, S., & Arweck, E.
(2010). Evaluation of impact of DfE investment in initiatives designed to
improve teacher workforce skills in relation to SEN and disabilities 1st Interim
Report. London: DfE.
http://publications.education.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DFE-RR058.pdf
Norwich, B. & Lewis, A. (2004). Special teaching for special children? Pedagogies for
inclusion. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ofsted (2004) Special educational needs and disability: Towards inclusive schools
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-
by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/Special-educational-needs-and-
disability-towards-inclusive-schools (Accessed 21.3.2011).
Ofsted (2010) The special educational needs and disability review
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-
by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/The-special-educational-needs-and-
disability-review/(language)/eng-GB (Accessed 21.3.2011).
Peacey, N., Lindsay, G., Brown, P., & Russell, A. (2010). Increasing parents’
confidence in the special educational needs system: Study commissioned to
inform the Lamb inquiry. Interim report. (117pp).
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry
Rose, Jim (2009) Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia
and literacy difficulties. [The Rose Review]. Annesley: Dcsf Publications.
http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/publications
Shield, B. & Dockrell, J.E. (2008). The effects of environmental and classroom noise
on the academic attainments of primary school children. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 123, 133-144
Training and Development Agency for Schools (undated) Hlta requirements
Training and Development Agency for Schools (2010). Professional
standards for Hlta status.
http://www.tda.gov.uk/support-staff/developing-progressing/hlta/professional-
standards.aspx (Accessed 21.3.2011).
Appendix 1 Methodology
This was a multi-faceted initiative, examining different developments in initial teacher
training (ITT) and post-qualification continuing professional development (Cpd). The
ITT developments and those concerning the Inclusion Development Programme for
Cpd comprised data collection in each of the three years of the project. These drew
upon independent samples for the questionnaires but repeated interviews wherever
possible, plus additional interviews with interviewees new to the initiative as it
progressed. The Stammering Information Programme (Sip) and Mandatory
Qualification (Mq) studies took place in the final year of the study.
Samples
Initial Teacher Training
The Tda materials were developed initially for undergraduate primary trainees
(2008-09), then undergraduate secondary (2009-10) and finally postgraduate
trainees (2010-11).
All 40 primary undergraduate ITT providers were contacted initially and 30 tutors
agreed to be interviewed in 2008-09, increasing to 37 in subsequent years. Five of
the nine secondary tutors agreed (2009-10, 2010-11). In the final year, interviews
were also held with 22 postgraduate course tutors providing training through
universities, School Centred Initial Training on the Graduate Teacher Programme.
Table A1 Samples for initial teacher training
2008-9 2009-10 2010-11
Surveys of ITT trainees
- Undergraduate trainees 306 459 490
- Postgraduate trainees - - 352
Interviews with tutors
Primary undergraduate 30 37 37
Secondary undergraduate - 5 5
Postgraduate: Pgce. Scitt and Gtp - - 22
Note: Pgce: Post Graduate Certificate of Education; Scitt: School Centred Initial Teacher Training; Gtp: Graduate Teacher Programme
Continuing Professional Development: Inclusion Development Programme
A sample of 30 local authorities was selected to reflect a cross section of LAs. Table
A2 summarises the samples by methods.
Table A2 Samples for the Inclusion Development Programme
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Surveys
Head teachers - 223 229
Head teachers - 336 439
Experienced teachers - 290 90
Teaching assistants - - 101
Newly qualified teachers 156 139 2537
Teacher Voice panel - - 2174
National Strategies data on
teachers attending Idp training
Interviews
- 3617 -
Local authority Idp leads 30 28 22
Cpd/Senior leads 17 11 12
SENCOs 24 21 13
Experienced teachers 22 12 11
Newly qualified teachers 18 14 9
Parents - 18 11
Postal surveys were conducted with school staff in a randomly selected sample of
1000 schools in 2009-10, and a new sample from 1000 schools in 2010-11.
Online surveys of newly qualified teachers (NQTs) were initially carried out with the
assistance of LAs, who were asked to identify NQTs in their schools. This proved
problematic as LAs often did not have a list of NQTs. Where identification was
possible there were concerns about data protection. Consequently, in 2010-11 with
the support of the Tda and the General Teaching Council for England we accessed
NQTs direct resulting in a much more substantial response.
The Teacher Voice survey was conducted by Nfer as part of a larger scale survey
to its Teacher Voice panel.
Interviews were held with key staff over the three years of the study. These were
usually the same person, except where there were staff changes. Parent interviews
were also held in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Interviews were held either face to face or by
telephone. Anonymity was assured and informed consent was given by participants.
Bespoke semi-structured interview schedules were used in all cases. These
comprised a small number of general questions each supported by probes. This
method balances the benefits of a more conventional style with the need to gather
systematic data.
Teacher level data and case studies were collected by the National Strategies.
Standardised questionnaires were distributed before and after Idp training. We
report data from 1783 teachers for dyslexia or Slcn training and a further 1834 for
training to support pupils on the autism spectrum. Case studies were produced by
schools to a standard format following a programme of implementation of the
learning from the Idp training.
Stammering Information Programme
The Michael Palin Centre made available its list of professionals that had attended
one of its training events to disseminate the Sip. These were mainly speech and
language therapists (SLTs) and teachers, with some students (ITT or Slt trainees)
and others, including consultants, advisers and others in education or higher
education. There were 565 professionals who responded to the online survey: 415
SLTs and 150 working in education, primarily as teachers.
Four of the five international experts invited to evaluate the Sip’s content and
presentation provided reports: Dr Susan Block, La Trobe University, Australia;
Dr Antonio Ellis, Howard University School of Education, Usa; Monica L. Ferguson
University of Utah, Usa; Mark Onslow, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Mandatory Qualification for specialist teachers of pupils with sensory impairment
Nine of the ten course leaders agreed to be interviewed. Fifty students were
accessed for an online survey with the support of the tutors.
Instruments and procedures
All postal surveys were anonymous. They were distributed to schools together with a
reply paid envelope for return. Online surveys were conducted by emailing a secure
web link to the sample, ensuring anonymity.
Appendix 2 – Composite school reports of impact of Idp modules
In this Appendix we present summaries of reports from schools that provide
examples of impact on teaching and learning and relations with parents that schools
attributed to their engagement with the Idp. The first set of examples concerns the
dyslexia module.
Box A2.1 Reported impact on teaching and learning – dyslexia module (original
version from 2008)34 (composite list across schools)
Reinforced or improved staff knowledge and understanding
• Pre- and post-CPD self-evaluation showed improvements in or reassurance about knowledge and understanding of dyslexia. • Ability to identify dyslexia or dyslexic tendencies. • Reference as needed to file of information about dyslexia (a reminder and resource). • Of how to create dyslexia-friendly curriculum resources. • Of what it is like to have dyslexia. • Of how to enable pupils to overcome many of the issues or to work around them. Reinforced or improved staff skills
• In identifying dyslexia. • Setting of reading and writing targets for every pupil. • Increased awareness about identifying children’s needs. • Creating suitable curriculum resources (though time to do so is limited). • Ability to select appropriate strategies to address barriers to learning. • Regular planned use of multi-sensory teaching approaches. • Feedback loop from teacher assessment of work to teacher planning. Improved ways of working with teaching assistants (TAs)
• TAs also trained on dyslexia module and so able to contribute to investigative work around identifying pupil with dyslexia. • TAs used to support dyslexic students in much more specific ways e.g. to enable students’ understanding to be recorded in writing; to convert teachers’ inaccessible curriculum material into dyslexia-friendly versions. • Skilled and knowledgeable TA used to deliver mini-session on dyslexia to two departments within a large secondary school. Impact on relations with parents
• Increased awareness that parents also may be dyslexic (e.g. School 2, letters sent home are on coloured paper, where necessary letters are followed up
34 These reports related to the original dyslexia materials. The revised version uses a different definition derived from the Rose Review (Rose, 2009)
verbally, also use texts and put information on the web as other ways for parents to access information). • Increased communication with and responsiveness to parents (e.g. if parents express concern, teachers are able to explain all the strategies in place, ‘We show them all the things we’ve got to help them, to reassure them that even without a diagnosis if your child had got dyslexic tendencies they are being helped in the same way as they would be helped if they had got a diagnosis’ (School 2); learning styles shared with parents so that they can support homework). Confirmed or enhanced everyday teaching practice
• Allowing time for processing of information. • Taking time to talk to pupils to find out how best to support them. • Routine use of multi-sensory/multi-modal approaches (auditory, visual, kinaesthetic). • Use of dyslexia-friendly curriculum resources (e.g. more visuals, fewer words). • Glare and colour contrast awareness (e.g. work photocopied onto pastel sheets, pastel background on interactive whiteboard, coloured background for displays, anti-glare laminate pouches to prevent reflections). • Independent learning resources easily available for pupils to use regularly (e.g. word walls, word pots, cue cards, alphabet arcs, number arcs, vocabulary cards for each topic, B and D cards, phonics resources, numeracy resources such as multiplication squares, multiplication key rings, topic based learning mats (words and pictures of key points in any topic), glossaries of terms and concepts. • Visual cues (e.g. visual timetables, labelling with words and pictures or symbols). • Use of appropriate It (e.g. ClaroRead software, AlphaSmart keyboards). • Using Vcop (vocabulary, connectives, openers, punctuation) to structure children’s writing. • Peer support (e.g. creation of lunch-time buddy group for those with dyslexia; lists on wall of who is good at what so the pupils can ask each other for help) • Reinforcement of basic skills (e.g. daily spellings, in-class phonics group, basic maths scheme). • Prompts for those who have trouble being organised (e.g. a key ring with things that need to be taken home at the end of the day, a buddy to help remind them). • Use of alternative forms of recording (e.g. digital recorders so pupils can verbalise their learning and record teacher instructions, accepting bullet point answers instead of whole sentences). • Photocopies of PowerPoint presentations to prevent need to copy from whiteboard. • More use of discussions in paired work and group work and less reliance on writing. • Resources to support handwriting skills, including sloping boards.
• Smart homework – i.e. differentiated but also time taken to explain it clearly • Reward systems to celebrate success – a whole school system and also class-based systems. Impact on learning
• Investigation of one pupil’s learning profile led to the discovery that she was not dyslexic as at first the teacher suspected but, in fact, needed glasses and a blue overlay. • ‘some impact’ on progress (School 3, experienced teacher). • Students able to access curriculum to a higher level when teacher showed empathy about the barriers they faced and acted to remove these by changing the curriculum resources and ways of recording – they then began to reach their targets and this in turn increased their confidence as learners. • One pupil was able to exceed his targets because of having been identified as dyslexic and given support from teacher and TA to support his written work; his confidence to answer verbally increased as did his willingness to participate in group work. • ‘Some test results have gone up as a result of [changes in my practice]’
(School 6, Nqt 2008-09).
• All the visual cues had made the pupils more resourceful and independent in
their approach to learning.
• Buddy group built up pupils’ confidence so much that they took on new roles
in the school e.g. joining the school council, contributing to school assembly –
group attracted others who were not dyslexic and so widened social networks
of the pupils and removed stigma of being labelled as dyslexic.
• Pupils markedly more engaged and enthusiastic about learning and willing to
participate verbally.
• Pupils emotionally more secure and confident and participating more.
The next compilation presents schools’ evidence concerning speech, language and
communication needs (Slcn).
Box A2.2 Reported impact on teaching and learning – Slcn module
(original version from 2008) (composite list across schools)
Reinforced or improved staff knowledge and understanding
• Of what Slcn means (‘the whole picture of language needs’). • Around identifying Slcn in pupils. • Of how to use resources to improve vocabulary or grammar. • Of the role of speech and language therapists (SALTs). • Of the role of trained TAs in supporting Wave 2 small group interventions under the direction of SALTs. • Pre- and post-self-evaluations showed shifts up the scale of ‘focusing’, ‘developing’, ‘establishing’, ‘enhancing’.
Increased awareness of complementary initiatives and resources around supporting speech, language and communication (such as I Can’s Communication Cookbook and Bt’s Chance to Talk). Understanding that Slcn Wave 1 strategies support every pupil
Reinforced or improved staff skills
• In observing and noting cognitive, emotional and social concerns about any pupil. • In-school competence developed around Wave 2 small group interventions. • Self-regulation of teachers’ speech in class (talking more slowly, giving shorter instructions, using hinged questions). • In planning e.g. routine planning to include multi-sensory/multi-modal approaches to learning (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic); routine feedback loop with what is learned from marking a pupil’s work informing planning for next lesson or topic. • Learned simple signing (minority of schools). Improved ways of working with TAs
• Much more close liaison between teachers and both TAs and learning mentors (e.g. TAs used to support pre-tutoring of vocabulary). • Specific TA trained to support speech, language and communication and to lead Wave 2 small group interventions. Impact on relations with parents
• Improved communication ( e.g. parents involved in supporting the pre-tutoring of vocabulary). • More positive feedback from parents about their children’s progress. Confirmed or enhanced everyday practice (pedagogy)
• Use of regulated speech by teacher (e.g. reduced pace, shorter sentences, simpler vocabulary, cued (hinged) questions). • Regular checking that pupils have understood (e.g. asking pupils to show red,
yellow or green card). • Allowing time for thinking before responding verbally. • More use of talking partners and paired discussion prior to written work and to encourage speaking and listening. • Encouragement of independent learning (e.g. use of talking partner, use of cue cards, use of visual prompts before asking teacher or TA for help). • More use of group work and role play to develop language skills. • Use of specific resources to develop vocabulary or grammar. • Visual cues in every classroom – e.g. new vocabulary, clear labels in words and pictures or photos, visual timetables. • Use of mind maps, story maps. • Use of writing frames and sentence starters. • Use of speaking frames. • Pre-tutoring of new vocabulary with pictures. • Use of signing (alphabet and key words) to reinforce instructions. • Consistent use of rewards for good listening. • Use of Wave 2 small group interventions led by TAs in partnership with Salt. • Acknowledgement of pupils’ knowledge, skills and talents beyond the academic e.g. praise for achievements in art, music, sport. Impact on learning
• Language scores rose after small group intervention (e.g. in School 2 from age 3.5 to age 8.5 after daily work for four weeks). • Self-esteem and confidence rose as teachers showed greater awareness of pupils needs and responded to these in more appropriate and empathic ways (e.g. a child began to talk to the teacher in sentences rather than single words, School 33). • Clarity of pupil speech has improved. • Teachers checking for understanding using a three-way colour code (rather than yes or no) helped students to become more reflective about whether or not they really did understand or would like the instruction repeated. • Tracked group of 14 Key Stage 3 students all met their targets (but their peer group did not so this raised issues about generalising strategies from individuals to all pupils) (School 48). The next compilation summarises schools’ reports of the impact of the Idp Cpd on teaching and learning associated with the autism spectrum module.
Box A2.3 Reported impact on teaching and learning – Autism Spectrum
module (from 2009) (composite list across schools)
Reinforced or improved staff knowledge and understanding
• Understanding of what it means to be on the autism spectrum. • Understanding how supportive strategies need to be tailored to each individual case. • Understanding the home situation too. • Understanding the relevance of suggested strategies to other pupils. Reinforced or improved staff skills
• Ability to break down tasks into small steps and to give instructions in this step by step way. • Learning how to use social stories appropriately. • Ability to build relationships with, and set clear expectations for, students with As. Improved ways of working with TAs
• Teacher learned from TA how to use social stories technique and acknowledged the TA’s greater knowledge and skills in this area by asking for her support while adopting this strategy with one pupil. • Learned different ways of using support assistance. Impact on relations with parents
• Improved communication(e.g. teachers talk to parents of pupils on the spectrum about what happens at home and seek their advice on useful strategies to adopt in school). Confirmed or enhanced everyday practice (pedagogy)
• Modelling to other students understanding of, and patience with, behaviours indicating stress (e.g. head banging or calling out). • Consistently giving instructions in a step by step way. • Reinforcing order of lesson on whiteboard with simple colour coding (e.g. lesson objective consistently in one colour, starter activity consistently in another colour). • Ensuring only one task at a time is being required (e.g. listening only or writing only not writing whilst listening). • Providing a distraction-free area for concentrated work. • Understanding need to work alone . • Use of social stories. • Consistency in how work was to be done and consistent praise when this was adhered to. Impact on learning
• Use of social stories enabled a pupil to participate in swimming with the rest of his class. • As relationship between Year 10 As pupils and teacher improved, so did the students’ work.
Finally, we present evidence reported by schools of the impact of the Besd module.
There was less evidence than for the other three modules as schools had just begun
to use these
Box A2.4 Reported impact on teaching and learning – Besd module (from
2010) (composite list across schools – only a minority had begun to use this
module )
Reinforced or improved staff knowledge and understanding
• Increased awareness of underlying reasons for behavioural problems created empathy and a readiness to implement strategies. • Understanding improved by reflecting on how the module relates to pupils in the school. • Awareness of withdrawn behaviour as a signal of underlying issues. • Understanding of Maslow’s hierarchy of need. • Provided some staff with a broader perspective on behaviour. • Reminded other staff about that broader perspective. • Understanding the links between the teaching strategies promoted by the dyslexia, Slcn and As modules and the impact on behaviour i.e. that some behavioural problems are due to unmet learning needs. Reinforced or improved staff skills
• Improved skills in observing behaviours and reflecting on underlying reasons. Confirmed or enhanced everyday practice (pedagogy)
• Prompted a review of school behaviour policy and of use of stages on the SEN register. • Allowed pupils affected by domestic violence time to settle emotionally before requiring academic progress from them. • Consistent use of reward, opt-in time out room and conflict resolution in relation to behaviour during break times. • Each year group teacher given a pack of specific strategies to use e.g. time out activities, cooling down resources, smile charts. Impact on learning
• Use of smile chart led to improved self-esteem and improved peer relationships. • Use of time out resources allowed children to be distracted from their anger and negative feelings so that the situation could be talked through and resolved. Impact on relations with parents
• Improved communication (e.g. meeting with parent/s to discuss how best to work together at home and school to address underlying problem/s; maintaining contact with parent/s to give positive feedback and praise).
Appendix 3 Inclusion Development Programme - ten case study schools
These schools were selected on the basis of the first two years of interview sets to
reflect: the reported quality and impact of the Cpd around the Idp, primary and
secondary schools, different Idp modules, schools with a range of types of intake
(e.g. faith schools, high numbers of pupils with English as an additional language,
resourced schools for SEN) and different regions of England.
School 2 Infants and Nursery School (city) Slcn, Dyslexia and Besd Idp modules School 10 Junior, Infants and Nursery School (town) Dyslexia, Slcn, As Idp modules School 45 Junior School (resourced unit for complex needs) Dyslexia and As Idp modules School 31 Primary School (rural) Dyslexia and Slcn Idp modules School 32 Primary School (faith-based) Dyslexia and As Idp modules School 33 Primary School (resourced unit for Slcn; high Eal) Dyslexia and Slcn Idp modules School 4 Primary School (inner city) Slcn, As and Besd Idp modules School 6 Secondary College (resourced units for As and Besd) Dyslexia, Slcn and As Idp modules School 37 Secondary College (town) Slcn Idp module School 44 Secondary Academy (city) Slcn, Dyslexia, As and Besd Idp modules
School 2 Infants and Nursery School
The Idp in the school:
City located, School 2 has 300 children on roll. By end of the autumn 2010 term, the
school had undertaken the Slcn and dyslexia Idp modules and begun the Besd
strand. The Asd strand was planned for 2011-12. The SENCO led on each one,
providing staff training in twilight and whole day Cpd sessions. The focus here is on
the school’s engagement with the dyslexia and Besd strands.
Impact on staff and the learning environment:
The school used the dyslexia Idp as part of its bid to gain Dyslexia Friendly Status
(Dfs), successfully achieving the advanced award. Referring to the impact of the
dyslexia strand, one teacher commented, ‘My classroom has completely changed’.
Another member of staff explained that lesson observations showed that, ‘There is all
this checking that they [pupils] have understood; regulating your own speech; the
amount of time they are sitting, listening, making sure that’s short. More group work’.
The field worker noted, too, that all classrooms were characterised by a Dfs
environment, including, for example, pictorial timetables, clear and comprehensive
text and picture labelling, the use of coloured backgrounds, and the easy availability
of information and prompts.
Impact on pupils:
As a result of introducing a consistent approach to speaking and listening based on
the Slcn module, pupil behaviour had improved. Introducing a ‘communication
friendly’ sheltered space had resulted in one boy talking to peers for the first time.
The school’s initial engagement with the Besd material (three twilight sessions by
the time of the fieldworker’s visit) had supported the whole staff in successfully
integrating a pupil with behavioural problems into the school. The pupil had been
excluded from the nursery of another school, and had been in a PRU.
Impact on parents:
This boy’s mother explained in an interview the ways in which the school had
supported both her child and herself. For example, school staff had provided her with
strategies to help the child at home that mirrored the school’s approach to supporting
her child. The mother explained, ‘It’s just both of us [school and parent] pulling
together’.
School 10 Junior, Infants and Nursery School
The Idp in the school:
School 10 is a medium sized junior, infants and nursery school in a rural market
town. The school had completed the dyslexia and Slcn strands, and, during the
summer 2010 term had started work on the Asd strand, continuing into 2010/11.
This work had, like the earlier Idp Cpd, been undertaken using a whole staff
approach, and utilised the LA’s Asd team, which had given twilight sessions to all
staff as preparation for engagement with Idp strand. It was expected that this would
be complete by the end of the spring 2011 term, and would be followed by the Besd
strand.
Impact on staff and the learning environment:
Commenting on the impact of the Asd work, the head teacher said, ‘The staff have
found that very useful. Quite a few have said to me that it helped them to understand
their children a little bit more […] recognising that they have autistic tendencies.
Some of the strategies that they’ve learnt through the training, they have been
employing with their classes [and it] has been beneficial’. In relation to the dyslexia
strand, the school had gained Dyslexia Friendly Status, and the learning environment
throughout the school reflected that status.
Impact on pupils:
Pupils talked confidently about dyslexia and the strategies that are in place in the
school to help pupils, like themselves, that have dyslexia issues. For example, one
pupil explained: ‘Well, I have dyslexia, and they’ve put this visual timetable on my
desk, so I know what we’re doing during the day. When each lesson is over, I just
turn that one we’ve done over’.
Impact on parents:
A parent of a child with reading difficulties (on School Action) explained the various
strategies that the school had put in place to help her child; including one to one
reading support. The mother said of this: ‘I think it gave him the confidence, because
he’s a child that lacks confidence […] I think that helped him enormously’. Another
parent, a parent governor with inclusion responsibilities, explained that, ‘the general
view [of the school] is that you need to be inclusive with all the children […] we’re
talking about inclusion as meaning every child that walks through the front door, to be
inclusive for all of them […] it’s not specific to SEN, to G[ifted] and T[alentend] pupils’.
School 45 Junior School (resourced unit for complex needs)
The Idp in the school
This school is a rural Junior (Foundation) school, with c 250 pupils on roll. The school
has a resourced learning support unit for children with complex needs. The SENCo
has taken the lead on the Idp in the school, starting with staff training on dyslexia
and then organising two sessions on Asd in 2009 (for staff) and training on Asd for
all LSAs. The SENCo also encouraged individual members of staff to work through
Idp modules. According to the headteacher, while the Idp materials were not used
on a regular basis, they would be revisited later in the year (2010/11); the principles
were in place and they underpinned the new initiatives that the school had taken on
with targeted expectations within classrooms.
Impact on staff and the learning environment
The Idp training (in dyslexia and Autism) had raised the awareness of the majority of
staff (10 of 12), however, there were pockets of teaching where differentiation was
not in evidence. Interviews with staff suggested that they had taken the principles
and spirit of the Idp on board and incorporated elements/techniques in their day-to-
day teaching. Teachers pointed out that engaging with the Idp modules had
refreshed their ideas and made them not, ‘just look at those specific children [with
particular needs], it does help the class as a whole, as opposed to just individual
pupils’, with the multi-modal approach giving every child an incentive to listen and
work.
Impact on pupils
The school introduced a more rigorous tracking system for pupils, which
individualised targets for reading and writing. This enabled quicker identification of
pupils with dyslexia-related needs. Thus, the Idp had an indirect, rather than direct,
impact. Also, the school routinely screened pupils for dyslexia when they come to the
school with Level 2C and below. Other pupils were screened when the tracking
system revealed discrepancies or slow or absent progression. The Idp had had an
impact on the way in which teachers communicated with pupils directly and indirectly
(e.g. written feedback), to make such feedback relevant, purposeful and
developmental. Pupils made ‘astute and acute’ comments on which teachers
differentiated their work and how that helped their learning (SENCo) and were
described as more willing to participate because of increased emotional security and
confidence arising from appropriate differentiation (Experienced teacher and Nqt).
School 31 Primary school
The Idp in the school:
School 31 is a rural-based, primary school, with 280 pupils on its roll. The school
began its engagement with the Idp through the dyslexia strand. This strand was
undertaken as part of the school’s bid to gain Dyslexia Friendly Status, which it
subsequently did. The intention had been to engage with the Slcn strand, and a
speech and language therapist had done whole staff introductory training as
preparation for Cpd based on the module. However, the need to prioritise e-safety in
2009/10 had delayed completion of the Slcn strand, which was expected to be
completed by the end of the 2010/11 school year. There were also longer term plans
to engage with the Asd strand during the school year 2011/12. The focus here is on
the dyslexia strand of the Idp in the school.
Impact on staff and the learning environment:
The head teacher and SENCO explained that Idp Cpd with staff had brought about
changes in the learning environment and in the capabilities of staff. For example, the
head teacher said, ‘The teachers are more fully aware now […]. They can identify a
child that they think has got dyslexic tendencies, because of the training that they’ve
received. I would hope that by doing the two other strands that they would then be
able to identify children more easily, without needing professionals to come in’. The
school also exhibited Dyslexia Friendly Status learning environments, described by
the SENCO as involving, ‘changes in routine things that we do every day […]
particularly making sure that the handouts are photocopied onto pastel colours, [that]
the interactive whiteboard has got a pastel background, […] visual timetables on the
wall [and] we use Vcop, vocabulary, connectives, openers and punctuation to
structure the children’s writing’. All the classrooms were, in addition, characterised by
full picture and word labelling, water was available for the children, a buddy system
was in place, children could record their thoughts before they started writing, and
each desk had a word pot in place.
Impact on pupils
As a result of the Idp, the headteacher reported that staff now had ‘high expectations
for all our pupils’.
Impact on parents
Communication with parents took into account that some might be dyslexic.
School 32 Primary School
The Idp in the school:
School 32 is a rural, medium sized, faith based primary school. The school had
engaged with the dyslexia strand in order to achieve Dyslexia Friendly Status (Dfs).
The school’s local authority required schools applying for Dfs to fully utilise the Idp
dyslexia strand as part of the preparation. In addition, in the September term of the
school year 2010/11, the school had begun to engage with the Asd strand. As part
of that process, all the staff had taken part in an introductory twilight session on
autism carried out by the LA’s autism outreach team. The intention was for the Asd
strand to be completed during the 2010/11 school year. The focus here is on the
dyslexia strand of the Idp in the school.
Impact on staff and the learning environment:
All the classrooms in the school exhibited Dfs environments. These included visual
timetables, pastel coloured backgrounds to all labelling and the interactive
whiteboards, table top prompts and information, word maps, and alphabet arcs.
Pupils in the classrooms were able to explain how they could access information, and
the function of, for example, the word prompt baskets, and punctuation pyramids on
their desks. The school also operated a dyslexia buddy system, which included
lunchtime dyslexia buddies’ meetings, and the use of dyslexia friendly resources,
such as the Ace Dictionary.
Impact on pupils:
The pupils from the dyslexia buddies’ group were interviewed by the fieldworker, and
gave interesting accounts of the activities that, in their opinion, had been helping
them to improve their performance in school. For example, they explained how they
had given a group presentation to the whole school about dyslexia and the strategies
used to help those with dyslexia issues. They also explained that they had asked to
meet the local authority staff who visited the school as part of its Dfs application.
The pupils felt that they had contributed to the school winning the award – something
they were proud of. They also gave accounts of the buddy group’s lunchtime
meetings, and showed the researcher how to use the Ace Dictionary, and coloured
overlays.
The experienced teacher interviewed had also explored the Slcn module and made
changes to how she gave commands – all pupils could now follow these.
School 33 Primary school
The Idp in the school
This is a rural Community Primary school in an area of poor social standing. Given
that the pupil intake is 96% Asian and partly transient, there is a high number of
pupils with speech and communication, especially Eal related, needs. The school
has a specialist speech and language unit. It had Dyslexia Friendly Status (Dfs)
when the Idp started. The school’s Cpd lead and SENCo took the lead regarding
the Idp, using the dyslexia module as a driving force to maintain Dfs and organising
staff training on Slcn in late 2009 (the latter involving the LA’s speech and language
therapist). Some staff training on dyslexia took place in Autumn 2010, with material
being assembled for all staff and a ‘learning walk’ ensuring the presence of relevant
items in, and consistency across, classrooms. The next focus will be on Besd, with
two twilight sessions time-tabled for Spring 2011, involving all staff.
Impact on staff and the learning environment
According to the Cpd lead, the impact of the Idp is stronger among teachers who
are relatively new to the school and weaker among long-standing/experienced
teachers. Awareness and knowledge of teaching staff and TAs regarding speech and
language and dyslexia have improved, as has confidence, although not all staff have
reached ‘enhancing’ level. Every classroom has a dyslexia folder which includes Idp
materials. Staff training has been effective because teachers now highlight particular
concerns. As the SENCO explained, ‘The conversations I have with the teachers and
the TAs regarding the children are actually more informed’.
Impact on pupils
According to the Cpd lead, there is a tracking system in place which monitors pupils’
speaking and listening skills and other aspects of literacy. Also, the Idp has informed
the school’s assessment system. Although the assessment documentation has not
changed, since the Idp work, teachers’ interpretation of speaking and listening skills
has changed because of greater awareness of Slcn. For example, TAs were now
bringing speech and language needs to the attention of senior staff. Further, teaching
is tailored to pupils, e.g. by using visual displays, using clear instructions, breaking
down instructions, using the alphabet/number arc. The experienced teacher
interviewed reported that the adaptations she had made had enabled every child in
her class to access the curriculum, including pupils whose confidence had risen so
much that they had, for the first time, begun responding to her in sentences.
School 4 Inner-city community primary school
The Idp in the school
This is an inner-city Community Primary school, which includes a nursery, with a roll
of c650 children, drawn from a deprived catchment area with a majority Asian
population. In this school, there has been progressive engagement with the Idp
modules. The school engaged with Slcn first. This was also very timely, given the
high incidence of speech and language needs among pupils. The focus on speech
and language continued in 2009/10, with the school working towards becoming a
‘communication friendly school’. In-school staff training on Unit 1 of Asd (including
staff evaluation) took place in Spring 2010, followed by ‘targeted’ staff (mainly TAs)
continuing work with the Asd materials. Staff training (including TAs and early years)
for the Besd module started in early Autumn 2010, The Idp is kept a ‘live issue’ in
the school in a range of ways: the Semco’s pro-active approach (supported by the
senior managers working closely together), the school development plan, and
continuing staff training across Early Years and all key stages.
Impact on staff and the learning environment
There was a clear impact on the teaching and learning environment staff created in
their classrooms. Staff interviewed commented on the quality of the in-school training
and the benefit they derived from it. Generally, teachers now used a more visual
approach in their teaching strategies, and supported learning with writing frames,
pre-tutoring vocabulary, general differentiation, ‘talking partners’ work, with ‘lots of
talk for writing’ and ‘continuing with speaking and listening skills’.
Impact on pupils
The experienced teacher gave the example of a young boy in her class who had
behaviour issues: the ‘smile chart’ which she introduced for him (where other pupils
and staff record anything positive about him) has been effective. Staff also used ‘time
out packs’ for pupils when they are wound up or angry, which gave them both
physical and emotional space until they were ready to talk. A ‘traffic light’ system was
also used as another way of giving pupils ‘time out’. The experienced teacher also
reported that adaptations to teaching made as a result of the Slcn Idp had led to
increases in pupils’ knowledge and understanding of the work, which had increased
their confidence and self-esteem. The Nqt described improved emotional
competence and social interaction amongst her pupils, including a boy joining in the
swimming lesson for the first time, because of adaptations linked to the As module.
School 6 Secondary College (Additional Educational Needs unit)
The Idp in the school
This school is a Community College located in a city, with c 900 pupils on roll. The
catchment area is mainly ‘white English’, within the bottom 20% most deprived
wards. The impetus to embed the Idp in schools has come from the LA. The school
started to engage with the dyslexia module, introduced by the LA’s head of language
and communication in 2009 to all staff, with follow-up sessions for interested staff.
Slcn and Asd were introduced by LA staff in a similar way, but LA staff also came
to the school for periods of time and concentrated efforts in different departments
(early 2010). There was further training for support staff by the LA’s dyslexia team.
The Idp module on dyslexia was to be used as one resource. Therefore, this is a
school where the Idp initiative is closely interwoven with existing provision for SEN
and the use of other related resources.
Impact on staff and the learning environment
Staff were described as ‘now quite good with dyslexia’ (SENCo), with staff knowledge
(of Idp related matters), skills and understanding having increased, as shown by pre-
and post-evaluation. Every department in the school had a reference folder
containing materials covering the content of the Idp modules, without directly
referring to them. These encourage teachers to employ strategies like: use of
overlays for computer screens, recorders in lessons (so that dyslexic pupils can play
back instructions), photocopies of PowerPoint presentations, allowing bullet point
answers. However, specific awareness of the Idp is low and implementation of the
Idp by all staff is at an early stage.
Impact on pupils
During the school visit, the researcher spoke to four pupils (all boys) who had
dyslexia related difficulties. They had all benefited from the support of the Additional
Educational Needs unit, reporting help with reading by finding the right colour
background for them or identifying the need for tinted glasses. One of them had been
at the point of refusing to come to school (having experienced difficulties throughout
primary school). All four pupils pointed to the difference in their attitudes to learning
which resulted from having their difficulties taken seriously and addressed, for
example, by learning strategies, such as breaking words apart and putting them back
together again; saying words out loud, coloured overlays or using a ruler for reading
text. Staff interviewed also reported increased functional literacy for Y7s and Y8s.
School 37 Secondary College
The Idp in the school
School 37 has 1200 pupils aged 11-18. The LA was a Model 435 Pathfinder for the
Slcn module because School 37 had close links with the nearby I Can special
school. The Slcn module was introduced to all staff from schools in the local cluster
by LA and I Can representatives in 2008. Three days of follow-up work with the I
Can special school involved three teachers and a TA from each of three
departments in School 37 visiting the I Can special school. These staff then
presented their learning to all staff in summer 2009. In 2009-10, the Slcn focus was
retained.
Impact on staff and the learning environment
Inspired by I Can teachers who validated much of their current practice, the Science
department staff introduced visual cues alongside the lesson objectives and revised
resources and tests to make them more easily accessible. This involved cutting down
on the amount of text and thinking creatively about alternative ways of testing
knowledge. They were able to offer the special school Science teacher subject
knowledge expertise in return. The Science curriculum was subsequently changed
and so the revised resources became redundant. The principles of a communication
supportive teaching and learning environment were retained but staff struggled to
find time to adapt the new syllabus’ resources. The Humanities department staff
learned to use more subject specific vocabulary, less text, to set pupil targets with
deadlines, and how to use topic mapping and self-assessment. The Design and
Technology staff learned to use visual cues.
Impact on pupils
In Science and Design and Technology, the visual cues were appreciated by all
students. In Humanities, students’ learning benefitted from self-assessment.
Impact on parents
Because of the Idp training, the Humanities teacher listened to the advice of the
mother of a student with autism and adapted his teaching and learning approach
accordingly (clear instructions, small chunks of information, stepped deadlines). This
reduced the anger and frustration the student had been expressing at home.
35 For information on the Pathfinder models and their effectiveness, see Lindsay et al., 2010.
School 44 An Academy School (secondary)
The Idp in the school
School 44 draws students from a number of London boroughs. Originally a local
authority secondary school with a resourced provision for pupils on the autism
spectrum, from September 2010, School 44 became an Academy run by an
independent trust. The LA was a Model 236 Pathfinder for the Slcn Idp module.
By autumn 2010, all four Idp modules had been introduced to the whole staff.
Following a two-hour LA training introducing the SENCO to the dyslexia and Slcn
modules, a 20-minute ‘taster’ on the Idp and both modules was presented to staff in
September 2008. Departmental meetings slots then involved staff in practical
activities from the modules. The English, maths and science departments were given
a copy of the Dvd. In Spring 2009, a survey of these departments indicated that 52%
were not confident about Slcn, compared to 8% not confident about dyslexia. Ten
teachers volunteered for further support in the form of a learning walk focused on
specific strategies to support Slcn. In 2009-10, staff were e-mailed to elicit their
current level of knowledge about As and that was used to inform a short
presentation, later reinforced by an e-mail reminding staff of the main points. In 2010-
11, all staff were e-mailed a presentation on the Besd module (the timetabled staff
meeting slot was missed). The plan was to follow this up at departmental meetings.
Impact on staff and the learning environment
The initial Idp presentation introduced staff to the National Strategies’ model of
inclusion and the three stages of intervention. Seven learning walks involving four
departments focused on students’ language comprehension of teacher’s starter
activity and introduction to main activity and students’ attention on teacher and use of
red, amber, green coloured strips to indicate level of understanding. All seven staff
reduced pace, used shorter sentences and simpler vocabulary as agreed but only
two used hinge questions. Each short, practice-focused presentation was effective in
reminding staff of good practice. Interactive departmental sessions were valued.
Impact on pupils
When hinged questions were used, the focus Slcn students answered. Students found the three-way signal for level of understanding useful. materials at the time of interviews.
36 For information on the Pathfinder models and their effectiveness, see Lindsay et al., 2010.
Appendix 4 Examples of parent, pupil and class teacher voice about the Idp
A4.1 The impact of the Idp – Views of a mother and son (dyslexia module) A4.2 The impact of the Idp – Views of a SENCo and a parent (Besd module) A4.3 The impact of the Idp – pupils’ voices (dyslexia module) A4.4 A teacher who was newly qualified in 2008-09 talks about the impact of the Idp on her teaching (Slcn, As and Besd modules) A4.5 An experienced teacher talks about the impact of the Idp (dyslexia module)
A4.1 The impact of the Idp – Views of a mother and son (dyslexia module)
A4.1a - A mother tells the story of her teenage son’s dyslexia history in school:
‘For [my son], when he went to nursery, he was holding his own. He was basically just getting along the same as the rest of them. Then, when he got into Primary, he started having huge differences. He wasn’t picking up the same. And I had recognised it, anyway, when you get, you know, these flash cards that you get with them? He just wasn’t getting it, and it sort of rang warning bells in my head. His dad was dyslexic as well […] so I had a little bit of awareness of it to begin with. But what I found when I got to school was that […] I was told,
‘We don’t like to put labels on children this soon. So, you know, that might be the case, but we’ll wait and see.’
And I feel as if, at that point, he missed out on a lot of support. He just kind of just got swept along, and he was always behind. He was always failing at things. That actually had a huge effect on him, on his personality, and made him feel like he was different, he was a freak, he was thick, and all of that stuff, and he gave up. By the time primary school was finished, he wasn’t even in school. It had got to the point where he just said to me … it’s really sad, this, and I still get upset about it … he just wanted to close his eyes, and, he said, ‘I don’t want to wake up.’ It was having such an effect. It wasn’t just about the reading and writing, which, I think …. a lot of people who maybe just haven’t had the experience, just think, ‘writing, reading, that’s all it is’. And it isn’t, it’s the whole of them. It’s the essence of them, in the way they behave. It’s … they’re totally stringed-up in there, in a different way. And he just gave up. And, you know, at that age, seeing that, it was absolutely soul-destroying. Yes, he was desperate. He just curled up, and said, ‘That’s it’, and he couldn’t go into school. Then I had the fight with the [primary] school, if you like. You know, ‘You’re not taking your child into school’ and what that would mean. Basically, at the end … I think it was about the last 9 months of it, the head teacher at [Primary] School actually said to us, ‘I don’t know what to do’. I found that very frustrating! You know, dyslexia? You know, we all know it exists. We all know children have learning difficulties. They’ve got these SENCOs in school to pick this up. They should be listening to the parents, because we’re with [our children] 24 / 7, and we know if there’s something [wrong]. […] Then he became, like, frustrated, and it turned into a negative thing for [my son]. He became very low and depressed. He still actually sees a doctor now. Every so many months, we go back to Dr [Name] and he’s still on medication for suffering from anxieties. […] But I found, when he came here [secondary school], the support was completely different. I was absolutely gobsmacked at that. He didn’t come full-time to begin with, because we couldn’t get him into school, so we kind of brought him in the back door, if you like. And they used to have a room called the [support centre] for kids that had problems like that, as well as children with behaviour difficulties, you know, like, that were naughty, kind of thing and so he came through that way. These support staff there were, like, the mentors, and that, they were fabulous! They were really lovely, and they took him under his wing, and … he started to slowly grow.’ [Her son’s story is given in A4.1b]
A4.1b - A teenage boy talks about his dyslexia and school [His mother’s perspective is given in A4.1a.)
‘When we were in primary school, and having to read a paragraph, it’s difficult for me because the words mungle up, or whatever. If I’ll be focusing on a line, reading a line, in the bottom and corner of my eye, they’d be wibbling and shaking and muddling.
Well, in primary school, one of the reasons why I didn’t like it is because we used to have to sit around and have a book and read out of it. And everyone else would be reading it normally, and I’d be still reading it, like I would be [mimics reading a word at a time slowly]. And then when I read, if I get a word wrong, and people are listening, I panic, and then I get another word wrong because I’m panicking, and then everything starts going wrong, so …
Another thing was when we were writing. I’d write really, really slow. And I’d also get a lot of my words spelt wrong as well.
Well, because my dad’s dyslexic, and then my dad’s dad, he’s dyslexic as well, so it’s going along the [generations], and my great granddad. I didn’t know I had it, but it all started to fall in place when I got older and went to get diagnosed with it. It was a high probability that I would have it because all my family did.
In primary school, when I got diagnosed with it, I got not a lot of help, because they didn’t really have the stuff for it. I got took out of a certain amount of lessons to do extra English, and all that, and that was it.
When I came into this school, I was with the [support centre] before they, like, changed it. Whenever I’d get something wrong, and I started panicking about it, I could, like, go there, and sit there for a bit, and do [my work] there. But when they changed that, I came here to the Additional Needs unit. Because they know about it here, I was actually getting a little more help. It was better, because I didn’t have to panic as much about, like, tests, and everything, because then I know that I could do stuff here, and I’d get help with it.
I got taught to spell something I couldn’t spell, make a saying out of it. Like, I couldn’t spell ‘because’ right. So, I got the saying, ‘big elephants can always understand small elephants’. But you can only do that for a certain amount of words, but that’s one of the stuff that helped us remember, was that. I had a sheet of pink coloured, see-through paper and that helped. But what I usually do now, if it’s a big paragraph, I just, as I’m reading it, I just cover that bit up, under the right line that I’m reading. I can read the line, and then just move down. But it’s one way of doing it when you need to read something fast. Like if it’s something on the board that I need to copy down, it’s difficult because the words jump around because the light’s shining on it, and it takes me twice as long as everyone else, then [I use the coloured overlay].
In some classes I’ll get someone who’ll come round and help us read the questions out, and if I read out to them, they write it down. Well, in some classes, I don’t need it. Like in Resistant Materials, I can do that, because it’s practical work. I’ve got [support] in History. In English, I don’t get it, because the teacher usually helps us quite a lot with it as well. But I get them in, normally all the classes.’
A4.2 The impact of the Idp – Views of a SENCo and a parent (Besd module) SENCO view: In School 2, work on the Besd module began in 2010-11. The SENCO explained that the school approach to the module was one of ‘taking our time […] We’re making it our own by trying to relate it to actual children and cases in the school’. The focus would be playground behaviour as that was the current issue in the school. Three specific strategies had been selected to focus on playground behaviour – reward, time out room (self-using, not as punishment), and the conflict resolution part of Seal (led by the Pshe coordinator). Staff were reportedly ‘really interested’ in the Besd module; to them, it was a revelation that Besd included quiet, withdrawn behaviour and were reportedly ‘shocked’ by the reasons for behavioural problems, creating empathy:
‘It really gives empathy, doesn’t it, to think that what you’ve seen is the tip of the iceberg. […] That was great for getting the empathy there and now we are getting all really, really ready for, ‘What do we do then?’ i.e. the strategies to implement.’ The module had confirmed the SENCO in her approach to addressing the needs of twins from a family that had experienced domestic violence. ‘Instinctively’ for the first year she had let them settle in and play in nursery rather than push them academically. After the Idp Besd module work, she felt vindicated and could now refer to the Maslow hierarchy of needs to justify this approach. During 2010-11, she had put in place an academic intervention programme for them. Mother’s view: The mother of the twins explained that the twins had witnessed domestic violence (father against mother). She described her son as being violent at home (‘always hitting and strangling and things’). She thought he might have Adhd. She had not raised concerns with school because she was not aware that there was an issue at school too (‘the last school they were in, they didn’t really inform me much’). Her view of School 2 was, ‘the teachers are wonderful here’. The SENCO had spoken to her about the school’s concerns that the twins were very quiet in school, pointing rather than talking. There was a discussion between them resulting in the boy being assessed for Adhd but this proved not to be the cause. According to the mother, her daughter was not showing learning difficulties at home but the school said she was ‘lagging behind’ at school. When school offered some one-to-one support for the twins, the mother offered to, ‘help as much as I can at home’:
‘It’s just both pulling together. I always found that if I work with them, then they’re going to do the best for my children. If they’re seeing that I’m not pulling my weight, then, well, why should they, really?’ As a result, the situation was improving at home which meant the children were missing less school. Since being in Year 2, the twins were ‘coming on’. Also the SENCO had explained to the mother the importance of routine and of not having a Tv on in the bedroom. The children were sleeping better and enjoying school.
‘They love their school friends. They love their teachers. The teachers are amazing.’ Mother also felt she had a good relationship with the teachers. She ‘didn’t have to hide from them’ her home situation: ‘They don’t judge you.' Because she knew the twins trusted the teachers, she did too.
A4.3 The impact of the Idp – pupils’ voices (dyslexia module) Four pupils from a county primary school, all of whom had been diagnosed with dyslexia, spoke about the impact of dyslexia on their learning: ‘you struggle with reading and spellings and stuff like that’, and ‘it’s about struggling with bookwork’. Their school had engaged fully with the dyslexia strand of the Idp, which it had incorporated into its successful bid to be an ‘advanced status’ Dyslexia Friendly School. The pupils explained what changes made by the school addressed their particular need:
‘I have dyslexia, and they’ve just put, like, this … visual timetable on my desk, so I know what we’re doing during the day. When each lesson’s over, I just turn the lesson that we’ve done over.’ I have, like, a little yellow sheet […] it helps me to read. When [work] is being typed up, I don’t have to use it, but when I’m reading a proper book … because I have to read it, because it’s, like … the black and white doesn’t go with me very well, because … letters jumble about every time when I read something, so I use the yellow sheet’. ‘Sometimes in class, they ask you to read something, and the yellow sheet helps you keep in line with the writing.’ The pupils were very positive about their experiences in the school. One pupil made a contrast between a school that he had previously attended and the current school. He argued that the behaviour problems he had experienced in his earlier school resulted from a lack of help for his dyslexia. By contrast, the current school had helped in this area, and his experiences were, as a result, much happier:
‘All the stuff that was happening, they didn’t put me on the dyslexic programme, and then they had loads of other things. I got into fights, and stuff, and that’s why I moved to here.’ Another pupil explained that all her time at the school had been very positive; referring to her dyslexia and the help she had received, she said:
‘The teachers have been really, really kind, and helped me with it, no matter what. And so it’s been really, really good, and I’ve really enjoyed it, and I’ve done a lot of good work.’ This pupil spoke optimistically of her transition to secondary school, where she was sure that she could continue to do ‘good work’.
A4.4 A teacher who was newly qualified in 2008-09 talks about the impact of the Idp on her teaching (Slcn, As and Besd modules) (Quotes are from autumn term 2010 interview.) Speech and language module – introduced in her school in 2008-09
‘We continued to access the speech and language module and I’ve actually moved classrooms now so I set up a more speech and language friendly classroom: where I am, where the board is and the displays that are up, visual, audio, kinaesthetic, things like that. Continuing the same practice as last year with the visual timetable and the visual prompts for instructions and all that kind of thing that come along with the speech and language [module].’ Autism spectrum module – introduced in her school in 2009-10
‘I had a boy with Asd in my class and […] going through the Idp Cd […] helped me to ensure he knew what he was doing and ensure he was comfortable in the classroom and he had his spaces to go, having those time- out spaces. I had a board that he could put up if he wanted to work without the distraction of the surrounding area, a space he could go and move to in the classroom. However, I think part of the Idp does tell you that this is actually good practice for all children and so the strategies we have in place were specifically for him but the other children could use them too.” Supported by a higher level TA, she also used a social story to help the boy conquer his aversion to putting his face in water:
‘It was only a couple of weeks before he was jumping in with the rest of the children, splashing his face. We took some photos for his progress file.’ Behaviour module – introduced in her school in 2010-11
‘When [the SENCO] was [delivering the Besd module 1], I was just thinking of the children in my class. […] It talks about where the behaviours are coming from. Is it medical? Is it from home? Is it the teachers that are igniting it and making it worse? And how to start to look at trying to identify what the actual problem is, instead of telling them off for what they are doing. […]. I think it’s more trying to give you an understanding, as opposed to trying to solve your problems.’
A4.5 An experienced teacher talks about the impact of the Idp (Dyslexia)
Experienced teacher, School 6 (taught Science in a secondary school and was lead learning teacher for Years 9 and 10 involving a lot of pastoral and behavioural work) Impact on his understanding and empathy
‘I [now understand that] yes, dyslexia is a hindrance and there is a big problem but it’s not a problem that’s insurmountable. You can actually overcome many of the issues or create strategies to work around them. I thought that was very fascinating. Then, when working with the students themselves, it felt rewarding to be able to develop them further and show an understanding with them, some empathy, not sympathy, but some empathy with them, with their difficulties because when you don’t have that affliction (if you want to call it that) you don’t appreciate the immense problems that it creates for a student and a lot of my work is behaviour related as well so you can actually see or understand and get a realisation as to why students create issues in classrooms if they cannot access the curriculum.’ Impact on his knowledge, skills and confidence
‘I’ve always been confident but I think I’m now more knowledgeable. It’s nice to be able to work with a student who you know what the difficulties that they’ve got and understand that there are ways and means around that particular problem. I’ve never lacked the confidence in terms of teaching the students but I now feel more able and skilled because of the work that I did with [LA dyslexia advisory teacher following up on the Idp module].’
Impact on approach to teaching and learning
‘We have the learning mats, that [LA dyslexia adviser] helped to produce. Basically, on a particular topic it will cover in a pictorial form with the words as well, all of the key points that will come in that particular area. So if we were studying acids and alkalis, all of the key words would be on there, and we’d get the colours, red for acid and blue for alkalis. The visual part of the learning would be much more enhanced. We did try Clara Read which I found initially was very, very good but we have to transfer some of the documents into a Word document (if they’re on Pdf they’ve got to be put into a word document in order for it to be picked up). Again, I will always come back to this, the time factor involved in preparation of those resources is very demanding and that is the one area which, in the light of everything else that’s going on, is an inhibitor. Clara Read I thought was a fabulous programme to use and enabled students to pick up the work.’ Impact on pupils
‘One particular Year 9 student that I teach springs to mind. In terms of his writing ability, he’s very, very low but, verbally, he gives me good accurate answers. With having an Ssa working with that particular student, he is performing to the level that is expected of him and he’s meeting his targets. In fact he’s exceeding his targets but, without that, and without my knowledge of the dyslexia problem, I think he wouldn’t be achieving anywhere near as much as he is presently. His confidence orally within the class has improved dramatically. He’s still reluctant to put pen to paper but that’s something which we’re working on and he will hopefully overcome that problem before his school days are finished but he certainly has more confidence within the group. When we do group work he feels he has a valuable contribution to make to it. There’s another two or three students who have the same problem, probably not as overt as the first person I was thinking about, but it’s related. Because they’re achieving success and actually reaching their target levels, it gives them the confidence then to stand up, stick their chest out and say, ‘I can do this.’
Ref: DFE-RR115 Isbn: Xxxxxx © Xxxxx May 2011
Ref: DFE-RR115 Isbn: 978-1-84775-912-2 © University of Warwick May 2011
Why this page, not just a PDF? The original is a PDF - fine to read, but a poor fit for assistive technology: heading structure is often inconsistent or absent, text doesn't reflow for zoom or a narrow screen, and screen readers can struggle with multi-column layouts and scanned pages. This page is the same content rebuilt as plain, semantic HTML - real headings, text that reflows, nothing a screen reader or zoom tool trips over.
Republished from Department for Education under the Open Government Licence v3.0. View the original PDF.