NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Make the most of pupils' true talents


WHILE ENGLAND’S obsession with league tables has no place in a 21st century education system, I can see little issue with the publication of more specific data about GCSE achievement across schools. I cannot argue that parents should not have access to this


Pete


Henshaw Editor SecEd


information, but I am concerned that parents and the local press will misinterpret this information and that this will lead to misplaced and unfair criticism of excellent schools. Bascially, the Department for Education has unveiled


expanded data showing how each individual school fairs in GCSE results across all 84 subjects. However, the early headlines that this move


has generated are already demonstrating a massive misunderstanding of the purpose of education. National journalists have focused their attention once again on the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) measure, just as they did in January when the headline GCSE statistics were published. I will say it again. The benchmark measure is students


achieving five A* to C GCSEs including English and maths – the Department for Education (DfE) itself has emphasised this. But this measure, which more and more schools have been successfully meeting, now rarely warrants a mention in discussions about standards. And so the new data shows that in 175 schools, not one


pupil was entered for all five subjects which are counted in the EBacc – English, maths, sciences, a language, and geography or history. We find that 22 per cent of students were entered for five GCSEs that could have led to them achieving the EBacc. Of this 22 per cent, 16 per cent achieved the measure. And we already knew that in more than half of state secondaries, fewer than 10 per cent of students gained the GCSEs they needed in order to be awarded the EBacc. So what does this all mean? Nothing. It means that


72 per cent of students took other subjects instead. And what’s wrong with this? Is it really such a indictment of our education system that 72 per cent of people didn’t take five of the EBacc subjects? No it is not. At no point, ever, can it be argued that every student should be taking a GCSE examination in, for example, geography or history. I fear, however, that some schools, especially those


under scrutiny, will feel pressured into coercing students to take these subjects purely because they are included in the EBacc measure. This is plain ridiculous. Should student X, who is excellent at religious education and the arts, take a language or geography instead? No. Coming back to the 22 per cent/16 per cent EBacc stats


– this high conversion rate is quite a testament to schools. It shows that schools were entering children for the EBacc subjects only when they considered it right to do so – right for the child and their aptitudes, talents and passions. And that is where we should aim to be – in a system where schools are free to guide a child’s options based solely on what is best for that child. Education minister Michael Gove says the EBacc is an


“aspirational measure” which will drive up standards. It clearly isn’t. It’s a measure which will drive up the number of students who are pushed, often wrongly, into studying certain subjects, and which will drive down the status of those subjects which are not included. It will, as creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson said in


SecEd last month, make subjects like citizenship, religious education and the arts optional by default (A baffling detour to the 19th Century, SecEd 279, March 31, 2011). Indeed, evidence is already showing that teaching time


for arts subjects and religious education has been reduced in some schools as they prioritise the EBacc. League tables are dangerous in an era when it is widely


acknowledged that collaboration between schools is what breeds success. The EBacc could fatally damage children’s education as they are cajoled down paths they do not want to tread and which do not make the most of their true talents.


• Pete Henshaw is publisher and editor of SecEd. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk or visit www.sec-ed.co.uk. Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/SecEd_Education


Analysing the Green Paper


ALTHOUGH THE Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Green Paper has been much delayed, it was finally released last month and we are now into the consultation phase. The Green Paper covers five


strands: early identification and support; giving parents control; learning and achieving; preparing for adulthood; and services working together for families. There are key points for each


of these strands, beginning with early identification, which has long played a crucial role in decreasing the number of statements which occur when a school or local authority is unable to meet the needs of a pupil with SEN. To assist in early identification


there will now be a health and development review when children are aged between two and two-and- a-half years. The Department for Health plans to recruit and train an additional 4,200 health visitors by 2015. The Green Paper also highlights


the need for a more efficient statutory assessment process. By 2014, the government proposes to replace statements with a single assessment process and introduce Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans to identify the needs of children from birth to 25. Supporting families through the


system via a continuation of Early Support resources, support from local authorities, and slimmed down SEN information from schools is intended to clarify a system which is seen by some as being overly complex for non-practitioners. Giving parents more control


over support and funding for their child is hoped to be addressed by individual budgets by the year 2014 for all those with an EHC plan. Additionally, the paper sets out the government’s aim to offer parents a clear choice of school – a point of contention in the 2010 election campaign. Parents will now have rights to express a preference for a state-funded school if preferred. Short breaks for carers and


children will continue to be invested in and mediation to resolve disagreements to avoid the need for tribunals is also promised. CPD lies at the heart of effective


SecEd


provision for SEN pupils; teachers cannot be expected to have the right skills in place without the right training. The Green Paper reiterated the importance of developing excellent teaching practice for SEN pupils and the critical role of leadership in getting the best from all school staff.


6


The recent SEN Green Paper looks at giving more control to parents and focuses on early identification. Special needs expert Lorraine


Petersen examines its implications Behaviour is again a key point


and the government promises to improve access to wider behaviour support in order to tackle the causes of difficult behaviour. Overall, the paper promises stronger school accountability in order to improve achievement for all pupils. In recognition of the challenge


that the post-16 transition presents to SEN pupils, the paper calls for a co-ordinated transition to adult health services. The Wolf Review of vocational education put the focus on the availability of education and learning opportunities; our young workforce needs adequate preparation for life beyond the classroom and vocational training can help to achieve this. Joint working across all services


is hoped to help fill the gap that the demise of Connexions left and it is vital that communication between the pupil, the parents, the school and health services is maintained during the transition from the secondary school setting to adulthood. The paper aims to empower


local professionals to develop collaborative, innovative and high quality services and encourage greater collaboration between local areas. Extending local freedom and flexibility over the use of funding and enabling the voluntary and community sector to take on a greater role in delivering services are also expected to streamline provisions. The need for specialist help will


be supported by helping to develop a high quality speech and language therapy workforce and enhancing the educational psychology profession. As ever, the question of funding remains and the paper will explore a national banded funding framework.


Clarification


On the day of the Green Paper’s release special needs association nasen, along with the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, the Federation of Leaders in Special Education, and the National Association of Head Teachers, held a summit where representatives from the Department for Education (DfE) and Ofsted were able to


clarify general points arising from the proposals. It revealed that school action


and school action plus will be replaced by a single school-based SEN category. Also confirmed was that education, health and care professionals will be required to work together to meet the needs of children and young adults and that outstanding special schools can apply to become academies and teaching schools. A number of points have been


raised since the Green Paper was released. Practitioners querying who will monitor provision and outcomes for SEN children with the diminished role of the local authority were told that the government still sees a role for local authorities in this area, but the Pathfinder Projects will be looking at other bodies such as the Third Sector. The Pathfinders will also clarify


who takes responsibility for the elements that make up provision of therapeutic support, especially speech and language therapy, since it is often unclear whether this is the remit of the local authority, the health service, or a combination. It also appears that the online


element of the self-evaluation form (SEF) will be removed by the summer term so schools wishing to use their SEF information are advised to transfer the information as soon as possible. Finally, the DfE confirmed that SEN pupils are not expected to make two full levels of progress across the key stage, which many believed was the case. The figure is actually not specified in the guidance to inspectors.


Analysis


It is vital that parents and families are at the heart of their child’s development both pre, during and post-education. We need to acknowledge that some parents will need more support than others in ensuring that they have and understand all of the information they need to make the correct choices for their child. With the reduction in key per-


sonnel at local authority level, I am concerned that those advocates


will not be available for parents to turn to. An additional year’s funding for


the award for SEN co-ordination is welcome and we will work with the DfE and the providers to ensure that the standard of this training is maintained, with course content reviewed in light of the changes outlined in the Green Paper. The SENCO will need to be at the forefront of the implementation. Nasen has expressed its concern


on a number of occasions in regard to SEN CPD for all teachers. We welcomed the introduction of SEN modules for Bachelor of Education students as well as the PGCE. The Inclusion Development Programme provided some very specific training in four key areas. The specialist training was always meant for more advanced study as will be the new modules developed from the Salt and Lamb Reviews. Now, nasen, with DfE funding,


will provide “whole-school raising awareness” training on SEND to ensure that every teacher has basic knowledge about SEND and the changing needs of 21st century children. A clearer, less bureaucratic


system is needed to make this more effective, less time-consuming and not dictated by who pays for what! Serious consideration also needs to be given as to how we ensure that professionals from health and education work together for the benefit of the child. The recommendations need to


be seen alongside the Education Bill, Health White Paper and the future development of academies and free schools. We urgently need more clarification on funding and how this will all be paid for, including where the Pupil Premium fits in. Finally, this consultation period


is an opportunity to influence future policy and practice. Such opportunities are few and far between and we would urge all professionals to help shape the framework for future education provision to ensure that the next system is fair and equitable for all children and young adults, regardless of need, setting or local authority.


SecEd


• Lorraine Petersen is CEO of nasen, a UK professional association for SEND. Visit www.nasen.org.uk


Further information


The Green Paper and consultation details are on the DfE website. Visit www.education.gov.uk/consultations


SecEd • April 7 2011


www.sec-ed.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16