A special educational needs teacher considers realistic ambitions, unfair criticisms, and how the EBacc might affect non-academic children.
“I work with children with special educational needs (SEN) aged 11 to 16 in a mainstream, urban comprehensive school. Special needs can be a confusing term: we don’t deal with severely physically or mentally disabled children, but those with speech, language and communication needs and moderate learning disabilities. They may have problems with memory retention, or organisational and cognitive issues; some may be deemed to have autism, dyslexia or dispraxia.
For two years these children work exclusively with me and my specialist colleagues, with the aim that by 13-14 years old many will rejoin mainstream classes. At 15-16 years, our group will be whittled down to a handful of pupils with a clear, identifiable disability. Every once in a while, we have a pupil who just can’t operate in a mainstream school and has to be transferred elsewhere.
Generally, our pupils fall into the category of the “20 per cent” that the government loves to talk about: the one in five who leave junior school without reaching the minimum national standards in reading, writing and mathematics. At 11 or 12, their academic level will often be that of a typical seven-year old from a pushy junior school. We follow a slightly different syllabus from the mainstream one, focusing on spellings or vocabulary for 12-week blocks, or working on social skills with autistic children – covering issues such as spatial awareness and why they shouldn’t swear.
Academically, the plan for the EBacc [which will be awarded to pupils who take five core subjects at GCSE] doesn’t seem relevant to my students. A portfolio of work rather than exams generally suits them better, and the present system of BTECs caters well to this. With all the focus on getting A* to C grades, you’d be forgiven for thinking that lower grades don’t exist. But with the best will in the world, my students will never achieve A* to C, and there needs to be a shift to recognise this. I know the blood, sweat and tears some of my pupils put in just to achieve E, F or G grades. Some kids won’t achieve good grades because they don’t put the work in, or because of negative things going on in their lives – and that’s unfortunate. But we need to realise that for many children, this level is just where they are.
SEN professionals never know how [schools inspectorate] Ofsted is going to judge us, and inspectors sometimes completely miss the point of what we are doing. The inspectorate demands that between years 7 and 11, SEN kids move up a minimum of two levels of academic attainment. But if someone has speech and language difficulties at 11 they’re still likely to have them at 16, so banging on about different levels misses the point. We should be allowed to be nuanced and say, for example: “Child X has made progress. She has learnt to socialise”.
Politicians and civil servants fail to strike the right balance between unrealistic and realistic aspirations. There is a case for saying we should all take a step back. There are many kids whose parents do certain types of jobs because they like them, or because they feel they are worthwhile, not because they are lucrative. We have to make the point that jobs aren’t just valued by their salaries, and that even if a job doesn’t pay well, it can still be very satisfying.
[Education minister] David Laws recently talked about how teachers needed to be more inspiring, and I had to wonder where he got the idea that this isn’t already happening. The same goes for [Ofsted head Sir Michael] Wilshaw, talking about teachers who leave at 3pm. I’ve never known a teacher who fits this description. As a SEN teacher, I know the difference I can make. But too often, it seems that Whitehall doesn’t understand or recognise the value that we can bring to kids with SEN.
Behind much of what we’re told by Whitehall officials lies a London, graduate-based outlook. When the government talks about the changing face of work, I’m always left feeling that they’re talking about graduate white-collar roles, not becoming a self-employed landscape gardener or mobile hairdresser – the types of occupations many of my pupils will take up. There seems to be a perception in government that being academic is more important.
We have seen some good measures: SEN now gets more support in terms of ICT provision, and we have more options in dealing with unruly behaviour. Plans for more flexible ways for people to become teachers are also welcome. But overall, the provision for our children to take on vocational experiences, such as painting and decorating, is patchy. I get the impression it’s being offered by community schemes which are always looking over their shoulder for the next funding. An injection of cash into courses that can provide things like generic manual work skills would be very welcome.
Decision-makers could do with getting out of London and leaving their social circles behind for a few days. A large percentage of the population will always be plumbers, electricians, or in other self-employed trades. And I don’t see why we – and they – shouldn’t be proud of that.”