Identification of SEN: is consistency a realistic or worthy aim?
Abstract
The SEN Green Paper and OFSTED have raised concerns about both variability in, and apparent over‐identification of, SEN. This article draws on the authors' research into teachers' experiences of identification of SEN. Findings, along with critical exploration of the current 2001 SEN Code of Practice guidance and proposals for reform outlined in the 2011 SEN Green Paper, suggest that an overemphasis on trying to secure consistency is misconstrued as a route to securing improved outcomes for pupils with special educational needs. The identification of SEN in schools requires assessing the dynamic interaction between the pupil's unique learning characteristics, the class group learning environment and the demands of meeting prescribed curricular learning outcomes. Such acknowledgement renders variability in SEN identification rates between schools as an expected consequence of local responsive planning and provision, rather than an anomaly to be eliminated.
Number of times cited: 4
- Simon Ellis and Janet Tod, Chapter 5. Special educational needs and inclusion: reflection, renewal and reality, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14, 3, (205-210), (2014).
- Brahm Norwich, Changing policy and legislation and its effects on inclusive and special education: a perspective from England, British Journal of Special Education, 41, 4, (403-425), (2014).
- Karen E. Broomhead, Preferential treatment or unwanted in mainstream schools? The perceptions of parents and teachers with regards to pupils with special educational needs and challenging behaviour, Support for Learning, 28, 1, (4-10), (2013).
- Karen Broomhead, Blame, guilt and the need for ‘labels’; insights from parents of children with special educational needs and educational practitioners, British Journal of Special Education, 40, 1, (14-21), (2013).
