SEN
■ There were signifi cant improvements in positive relationships and reductions in bullying and behaviour problems.
■ There was an increased awareness of and focus on SEND. The report recognises that as the programme rolls out there will be
changes but it emphasises the importance of any future programmes: ■ Extending or enhancing existing good practice. ■ Sharing good practice between schools. ■ Being led by a prominent role within the school. ■ Having the human resource-intensive elements fully supported. ■ Having at least two structured conversations each year with parents. ■ Using data at a range of levels and for a variety of purposes. ■ Acknowledging local contexts and circumstances. ■ Providing additional support to groups of vulnerable learners. According to Ms Taylor, the benefi ts at Stanley Road have been: “The
time and structure to have focused conversations with parents and an increased focus on closing the gap between AEN (additional educational needs) children and their peers. It has also meant that we have been able to identify some gaps and provide opportunities for activities to meet these needs.” There is a strong commitment to the roll out of the programme and
schools are being encouraged to register their interest online. What advice would Ms Taylor give to new schools? “Look at and analyse your existing practice carefully. We found we had a lot of good practice in place already. Also be prepared to invest time and money in making the structured conversations happen.”
Some hurdles to overcome The programme has not been without its challenges. The evaluation acknowledges the diffi culties there are in establishing a dialogue with hard-to-reach parents and that some groups of students will remain more vulnerable even within the context of what the programme offers. For example, positive outcomes were harder to achieve among pupils
with behavioural, emotional and social diffi culties (BESD) and those eligible for free school meals. “The key issue here is that there are certain
Initial stages of the Achievement for All programme School registers online It’s good to talk: The programme aims to work with parents
groups of learners who may be considered ‘vulnerable’ or ‘at-risk’, even in the context of a highly successful intervention such as Achievement for All.” (Evaluation report 2011) Contextual factors made signifi cant differences to outcomes – e.g. the
stage the school was already at when the programme was implemented. The evaluation found that the programme was more successful where the Achievement for All lead was the headteacher and where parents and teachers were more frequently involved in reviewing individual targets. This programme is as reliant as any other upon the environment that receives it and those who are involved in implementing it. Without the school’s commitment and enthusiasm it can have a limited impact. Although the SEN Green Paper describes Achievement for All as
leading to the declassifi cation of children previously identifi ed as School Action, this was as much an expectation of the programme as a spin-off from it. The move from the DCSF and now the DfE in SEN thinking is that there should be the removal of children from categories through greater focus on teaching and learning in the classroom. The Green Paper suggests that categorisation comes more from teachers’ lack of commitment, knowledge and awareness than the specifi c needs of the children themselves. The Green Paper refers to the increased focus that comes with
Achievement for All on setting targets for SEN pupils and tracking their progress to achieve them. Ironically some might argue that it is the target-setting process itself that initially led to the marginalisation of SEN pupils. Pressure on schools to raise attainment levels at the end of key stages
School contacted by the regional lead – initial discussion about the school’s context
led to schools targeting support at children just below the threshold of these key indicators. Unfortunately, in some cases this led to resources being channelled away from pupils with SEN to provide more impact where the stakes were highest. Cynically we might say that it is the way that results are reported that has more impact on provision for SEN pupils than any specifi c strategy implemented.
Allocation of an achievement coach to support the school throughout the programme
Some aspects to celebrate However, there are real strengths in the Achievement for All programme. A dialogue that does not talk down to parents but seeks to work with them and listen is an acknowledgement of the enormous impact that background and home circumstances have. Time given to developing this relationship between home and school is vital. It is also good to see recognition of the importance of building pupils’
Needs analysis followed by bi-weekly visits by the achievement coach
self-esteem. Simply reducing pupils to a “below average” group that is colour-coded from coat peg to their pencil holder, cannot be motivating for those who begin at the lowest starting point. If time, energy and resources are put into acknowledging where pupils with SEND do have strengths, building their self-esteem and developing relationships then this programme might just be the one to invest in.
Whole-school INSET to introduce the programme to staff
Further information ■
www.afa3as.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/The-Journey- Leafl et.pdf
■ Achievement for All National Evaluation: Final report professor Neil Humphrey and Dr Garry Squires (DfE), November 2011
■ If your school is interested in joining the programme you can register online through the Achievement for All 3As’ website at
www.afa3as.org.uk
12
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 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40