The role of SENCOs as leaders

2014 marks an important milestone for the SENCO (Special Educational Needs Coordinator) role. It is the 20 year anniversary of the requirement for schools to have a named person as lead for Special Educational Needs (SEN). This article explores the vision of the role as seen in government guidance and documents and compares this with the views of those in post who are undertaking a required training programme to become a qualified SENCO. An optional questionnaire was distributed to all SENCOs at Induction (Time 1) and repeated upon completion of the course (Time 2) and 10 semi structured follow up interviews were conducted with volunteers to explore emerging themes. Differences were seen in the sample between those that were part of the senior leadership team in terms of their views on their ability to lead and direct practice, resource management and the strategic goals of the role.

Student perceptions of their IEP targets

The 2001 Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs (DfES, 2001) explicitly states that students with IEPs should have an active role in the writing and implementing of them. A research project was conducted in which 19 Year 8 students in three schools were interviewed, with the findings cross-referenced against an examination of their individual education plans (IEPs) and interviews with the SENCos. Very few students were able to communicate a clear understanding of IEPs. Students' stated targets mostly reflected mainstream target-setting: very few stated targets matched with those in their IEPs. Consistent with these findings is literature which argues that meaningfully involving students in the IEP process takes considerable time and effort, which would appear to imply that the number of students with IEPs in any one school must be limited. Against this are pressures, particularly from OFSTED but also from examination boards, to have IEPs available as evidence that students' needs are being met. The article concludes by suggesting that SENCos look to limit the number of IEPs issued, alongside a robust defence of the school's special educational needs policy within the school evaluation form to ensure that students' needs are met and also are seen to be met.

IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: an agenda for research

Providing children with special educational needs with individual education plans (IEPs) was advocated in the 1994 code of practice for SEN, and retained in the 2000 code. Specifically as it relates to mainstream secondary schools, this has proved highly controversial: many SENCos report that the writing and implementing of IEPs is a bureaucratic encumbrance, whilst others, going about the process of writing IEPs in very different ways, report that the process is both manageable and beneficial to the children concerned. Given this contradictory evidence, there is an urgent need for research into this area. Having looked at three case-studies of schools using very different methods to write IEPs in ways with which they feel comfortable, a research agenda is set out with a view to informing policies which ensure that resources spent on SEN are used as productively as possible.

Children with Special Educational Needs as film makers: Using digital video to support Understandings of Narrative

The literature has identified issues around transitions among phases for all pupils (Cocklin, 1999) including pupils with special educational needs (SEN) (Morgan 1999, Maras and Aveling 2006). These issues include pupils’ uncertainties and worries about building size and spatial orientation, exposure to a range of teaching styles, relationships with peers and older pupils as well as parents’ difficulties in establishing effective communications with prospective secondary schools. Research has also identified that interventions to facilitate these educational transitions should consider managerial support, social and personal familiarisation with the new setting as well as personalised learning strategies (BECTA 2004). However, the role that digital technologies can play in supporting these strategies or facilitating the role of the professionals such as SENCos and heads of departments involved in supporting effective transitions for pupils with SEN has not been widely discussed. Uses of ICT include passing references of student-produced media presentations (Higgins 1993) and use of photographs of activities attached to a timetable to support familiarisation with the secondary curriculum for pupils with autism (Cumine et al. 1998).

The experience of the hidden curriculum for autistic girls at mainstream primary schools

This article presents the findings of ethnographic case studies of three girls on the autistic spectrum attending mainstream primary schools and illustrates the difficulties they experience and the ways in which these are often unrecognised. The observations of the girls and subsequent individual interviews with their mothers, class teachers, SENCO’s and ultimately themselves, reveal the personal adjustments the girls make in response to the hidden curriculum and the ways in which these go unnoticed, effectively masking their need for support, and contributing to their underachievement in school. The research also identifies a misunderstanding of autism in girls by some teachers that contributes to a lack of support for their needs, despite their diagnosis. Teachers need to understand how autistic girls present, and how they learn, if they are to recognise the need to illuminate the hidden curriculum. The implications of these findings are that without this awareness autistic girls in mainstream settings are also at risk of limited access to the known curriculum and of social isolation.

Who Should do What to Whom? : Occupational Groups´Views on Special Needs

The overall aim of this thesis is to increase our knowledge of different occupational groups´ views on work with children in need of special support. This is explored in four separate studies. The first study investigates the views of occupational groups in preschools and schools in one municipality. A questionnaire was handed out to all personnel (N=1297) in the municipality in 2008 (72.5 % response rate). The second study explores the views of educational leaders (N=45) in the same municipality. Questionnaire # 2 was distributed in 2009. All the educational leaders responded to the questionnaire. The third study describes the views of different occupational groups concerning special educational needs coordinators´ (SENCOs) role and work. This was highlighted by comparing responses from questionnaire #1 and # 2. Responses concerning SENCOs´ work were also added using a third questionnaire. This questionnaire was handed out in 2006 to chief education officers (N=290) in all municipalities in Sweden. The response rate was 90.3%. Finally, the fourth study presents five head teachers´ descriptions of their work with special needs issues. Study four was a follow-up study of questionnaire # 2. These head teachers were selected because of their inclusive values and because they seemed to be effective according to certain criteria. They were interviewed in January 2012. The results reveal a number of interesting findings. For example, there are both similar and different views among the occupational groups concerning work with children in need of special support. A majority of the respondents in all groups state that children´s individual deficiencies is one common reason why children need special support in preschools/schools. Differences between the occupational groups become especially visible regarding their views of SENCOs‟ work. Critical pragmatism (Cherryholmes, 1988) is applied as a theoretical point of departure. Skrtic´s (1991) critical reading and analysis of special education relative to general education is specifically used to interpret and discuss the outcome of the studies. Additionally, Abbott´s (1988) reasoning concerning the “division of expert labor” is used to discuss the occupational groups´ replies concerning “who should do what to whom”. The findings in the studies are contextualized and theoretically interpreted in the separate articles. However in the first part of this thesis (in Swedish: Kappa), the theoretical interpretations of the empirical outcome are discussed in more detail and the results are further contextualized and synthesised. Inclusion and premises for inclusive education are also discussed in more depth in the first part of the present thesis.