loobylou wrote:
It's interesting data but surely ultimately meaningless because there's no single definition.
At our primary there were children with very severe additional needs who had statements, but there were others with relatively mild dyslexia or who were just relatively delayed compared to their peers at the time, who were given SENCO assistance because it suited the school (she had time within her timetable, it helped those children develop skills more quickly and it allowed for the rest of the class to do different work) but who would never have been classified as having SENs in other schools.
In my sister in law's school their definition is a student falling three years behind what is expected. At our school it was more like three months!
I have also worked in two schools where the difference was striking. In one, even children with quite severe issues did not get support, while in another, children who in my own view were just a little slower to catch on or found it hard to sit still ended up with SENCo support. I don't think it is any coincidence that the demographics of these two schools varied hugely.
I am afraid that having worked in a school for children with complex cognitive and physical disabilities (often both - blind/deaf/severely autistic in one child, for example) whose parents have had to fight at every step of the way for even basic provision, the increasing tendency to categorise variations of normal as SEN which then attract extra funding and time does irritate me. In Finland there is a recognition that many children have specific needs and the responsibility for ensuring that those needs are met lies with the schools - that is what happens when you have a highly professionalised workforce who are able to exercise their knowledge with autonomy. I cannot help thinking that in England, the early school start, along with an often inappropriate curriculum for small people, is exacerbating a tendency to see children as having SEN when actually if school was more appropriately structured and took account of individual variations then many would be just fine. Controversial view perhaps, and no offence intended to those whose children have been diagnosed with one of the newer disorders: I just wonder where the tipping point lies after which we will acknowledge that if, say, 51% of children have SEN, it is the 'E' which needs to change, not the child.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
