The SEND funding announcement - more questions than answers

Of course, the government’s announcement on 16th January of £200 million for a SEND teacher training programme is welcome as is any increase in SEND funding. Moreover, teacher training in this area has been always shamefully weak and patchy. However, this announcement leaves more questions than answers.

When?

There is no time scale in this announcement. It is part of the SEND White Paper - yet to be released despite ‘testing the water’ leaks. The training will be a new expectation in the new SEND code of practice - yet to be written. Further, the training itself has not yet been developed. None of this will be happening immediately.

Who?

Who will this training be for?

While it is good to see indications of further training for TAs, support staff and early years to come and the identification of the gap between ECTs and those accessing NQPs, this is focused on training for teachers. However, it is unclear if the supposed beneficiaries of this training will be across all settings: maintained schools, academies, independent schools, colleges and APs or just where the government sees failings?

Who will be delivering and preparing this training?

We are promised ‘high-quality training materials, developed alongside experts which will be shared with every school and college to enable in-house training for all staff on SEND and inclusion’. But who are these experts and how will they be selected? Under the previous government, we had a politically driven agenda on behaviour in schools - not something we want to see repeated for SEND. There is a real danger of ‘experts’ who are too far from the real life of schools to be able to produce anything that is realistic and deliverable in schools.

How?

We are told that the training will be ‘delivered flexibly to slot into teachers’ busy schedules’. But it is not clear what this means. Although £200 million sounds a lot, it is about £318 per teacher. This will not provide much.

These experts are not going to be coming into schools, so that we are going to either have the cascade model where school leaders, probably SENCos, received the training and then share it with other staff or delivery via online materials. Neither feels like the promised high quality training, as anyone who has worked their way through a series of ‘interactive’ training materials, or listened to someone reading a series of PowerPoint slides they didn’t write knows. Will this training just add to teacher workload with little benefit or be given real value and time?

What?

The training promises worthy aims mentioning inclusion, some specific needs, assistive technology and working with parents. None of this makes the content of the training much clearer.

The 2009 Inclusion Development Programme (delivered via DVDs and booklets sent out to schools) focused on a range of individual diagnosis starting with autism. This fed into the medical diagnosis led approach to SEND that persists today. I fear that this programme will replicate this, focusing on diagnoses rather than a needs-led approach. Teachers do need more information and understanding about the most common diagnoses, but there is a risk of a diagnosis-led approach feeding into stereotypes and expectations of what a child with, for example ADHD, looks like and their support, diverting attention from the real needs of individual children, particularly those with multiple or complex needs or who do not fit the common presentation of a particular need.

What do we need?

We need an increased emphasis on SEND within ITT and CPD, to embed support for all children with SEND and inclusion within school systems, not a ‘bolt on’ for those with a diagnosis or clearly identified needs. A key issue with SEND, leading to the rising number of SEND pupils, is our rigid attainment driven education system that expects children to fit to the curriculum and school systems rather than starting with the children and their needs. Until we re-balance the education system to focus on children’s needs rather than the measurement of academic (and often age and development inappropriate) targets, increased SEND training feels like tinkering at the edges.

There is a talk of this training package as ‘crucial to enable children to feel safe and welcome in School’ as well as both more inclusive spaces in mainstream schools and specialist placements. However, if we are looking for a realistic answer to the growing SEND crisis, we need a systematic change of the education system and how it works with medical and social services to support children. We need inclusion across education for all children.

This feels like a distraction, not an answer.