Placing learner needs at the centre of education? The 2015 Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Code

of Practice seven years on.

Grace Last, former Masters student in Education and Special Educational Needs, shares her research about effectively implementing SEND policy in schools.

Research can help decide which direction will lead to good implementation of recent SEND policy.

The implementation of the Special Educational Needs/ Disabilities

(SEND) Code of Practice (CoP)

2015 was welcomed by the then Coalition Government, as ‘the biggest transformation to SEND support for thirty years’ (DfE & DoH, 2015). The primary aim of the reform is to focus on improved outcomes for young people with SEND, with a particular focus on the young person working towards outcomes around ‘independence’ and ‘employment’ (Hodkinson & Burch 2019). The policy also attempts to make provision more aspirational and personcentred, with the young person and their family involved in all decisions made (DfE & DoH, 2015). Consequently, the reforms have displayed a variety of substantial changes in public attitudes towards SEND provision and the diverse practices that outline that provision.

(SEND)CodeofPractice

(CoP)2015waswelcomed alter their professional outlook. This is because all practitioners working directly with young people within education are now required to have more awareness of the opinions, wants and feelings of young people and their parents/carers. Such policy changes have created much uncertainty around practitioners’ job roles (Greenwood and Kelly, 2017).

Existing literature proposes that educational professions view the 2015 SEND guidance in a predominately pessimistic light due to the many barriers to implementation. This is made apparent by Dunsmuir et al (2020) who highlight how the introduction of the new SEND CoP has resulted in professionals having to completely

Increased accountability has been placed upon professionals who work with young people within educational institutions, particularly teachers. All teachers are now expected to recognise their responsibility for delivering universal provision as a means of emerging enhanced inclusive practices (Rouse, 2012). Society has moved on from a time in which practice situated SEND as different from ‘normal’ teaching (Ekins et al, 2016). Instead, policy rhetoric now proposes that a key emphasis needs to be placed on inclusive teaching, with amplified responsibility for SEND situated on the class tutor as opposed to laying solely with specialist SEND tutors, the SENCO/ SEND manager or learning support assistants.

However, calls for such a change in approach that is now required from teachers has been met with opposition. Curran (2019) observed from her study that teacher resistance to engage with the SEND CoP was a significant barrier for SENCos when attempting to implement a shift in approach.

Research suggests that in order to help engagement with policies such as the 2015 SEND CoP, long-term help must be given to teachers in the form of professional development (Greenwood and Kelly, 2017). Without sufficient CPD (continuous professional development) educators are not effectively equipped with the knowledge and new skills that are needed to engage with new policy reforms. Thus, teachers cannot be expected to put policy changes into place if they have not been given adequate training. However, Crane et al (2021) found from their research that time was a considerable factor in the lack of implementation from staff as, despite educational professionals engaging in a large variety of CPD, they believed that they did not have sufficient time apply their new-fangled knowledge, thus resulting in them relying on experience.

The reviewed literature exposed limited research surrounding the positive effects of the 2015 SEND CoP on educational professionals. Thus, a smallscale qualitative study was undertaken using participants that work within a mainstream post-16 provision with a large SEND cohort. In doing so, the researcher adopted a refined focus examining whether nearly eight years after implementation, professionals viewed the SEND guidance via a more positive lens. Findings suggested that barriers to implementation of the SEND guidance continue to exist. Recurring themes relate to a lack of training, time, funding and responsibility held by professions. However, findings do suggest that some professions have begun to recognise the positive influence of the SEND CoP and have altered their practice accordingly, placing the learner needs at the centre.

The research concludes that there is currently a gap between policy and practice. The guidance outlined within the 2015 SEND CoP appears to be unattainable for many educational professionals as the correct level of special educational support is not currently in place to enable educational professionals to apply the guidance to their practice. This is because practitioners are not provided with the resources that enable learners to reach their educational outcomes. As well as a minimal resources, practitioners also lack the professional development that they require in in order to implement the guidance into their practice.

Thus, educational professions cannot successfully apply the guidance within the SEND policy to their practice until the correct special educational support is put in place. Subsequently, more must be done to unite both policy and practice together in the interest of young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.

References

Crane, L., Davies, J., Fritz, A., O’Brien, S., Worsley, A., Ashworth, M. and Remington, A. (2021) The transition to adulthood for autistic young people with additional learning needs: the views and experiences of education professionals in special schools. British Journal of Special Education, 48 (3), pp. 323-346.

Curran, H. (2019) ‘The SEND Code of Practice has given me clout’: a phenomenological study illustrating how SENCos managed the introduction of the SEND reforms. British Journal of Special Education, 46 (1), pp. 76 – 93.

DfE (Department for Education) & DoH (Department of Health) (2015) Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years [online]. GOV. UK. Available from <https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/send-code-ofpractice-0to-25> [accessed 24 January 2022].

Dunsmuir, S., Cline, T., Crafter, S. and Laing, J. (2020) Challenges in planning transition to adulthood for young people who have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND): professional and managerial perspectives. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20(1) pp. 27–37.

Ekins, A., Savolainen, H. and Engelbrecht, P. (2016) An analysis of English teachers’ selfefficacy in relation to SEN and disability and its implications in a changing SEN policy context. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(2), pp.236-249.

Greenwood, J. and Kelly, C. (2017) Implementing cycles of Assess, Plan, Do, Review: a literature review of practitioner perspectives. British Journal of Special Education, 44 (4), pp.395-408.

Hodkinson, A. and Burch, L. (2019) The 2014 special educational needs and disability code of practice: old ideology into new policy contexts?. Journal of Education Policy [online], 34(2), pp. 155-173.

Rouse, M. (2012) “Foreword.” In Future Directions for Inclusive Teacher Education: An International Perspective, edited by C. Forlin, xvi–xix. Abingdon: Routledge.