More teacher training on SEND – but is it the answer?
Last week Children’s Minister, Will Quince, spoke at an event hosted by Special Needs Jungle about the ongoing work on the SEND Review. Although Quince gave very little away about what the review might contain and more importantly, how it might resolve some of the colossal challenges in the system, he repeatedly spoke about teacher training and the importance he places on this for the future.
Teacher training as a 'solution'
The availability, quality and variability in teacher training through formal DfE sponsored routes and the plethora of programmes available from other, third-sector, providers will be familiar to many. As far back as 2013, DYT called out the lack of training teachers received through their initial professional training and others have followed suit.
Most recently a petition was launched calling for mandatory training for SEND for all teachers, who have previously reported lacking opportunities to engage in effective CPD. This is a separate, but related, issue to shortfalls in funding and other resources.
The government’s answer to date has taken two forms; addressing and reforming the training of teachers early in their careers (initial teacher training, followed by the early career framework) and for those in leadership positions (e.g. NPQs). The lack of specific NPQs for leaders in specialist settings or for mainstream leaders on inclusion is a considerable gap and there has been little talk of pupils facing the most significant disadvantage and SEND in developments of the new Institute of Teaching. DfE had previously refused calls to develop these alongside its latest slew of NPQs, none of which provide the depth or clarity required to see how they could make a real difference in the way Quince has foretold.
At current rates it would take fifteen or more years to train every teacher through early career programmes and as such CPD must play a part in this picture. Yet, research by UCL concluded that SEND CPD is rarely prioritised by school leaders, lacks effective quality assurance and is poorly evaluated.
The wider teacher training sector, backed by relevant research, is mostly in agreement that training needs to be driven by quality evidence, include elements of professional support and challenge, and to reflect the context in which teachers actually work.
Given DYT's interest in CPD, both as a provider and key intervention to drive up the quality of education, we absolutely agree this needs to be part of the picture. But, is professional development the answer to improving outcomes of young people with SEND, and if not what also needs to happen to make this effective?
‘teachers should be continuing to deliberately develop skills of observation, reflection, inquiry and, most importantly, adaptive expertise’, Margaret Mulholland
Quality, impact and career pathways
Providing ‘more training’ is a straight forward sound-bite, however if we only look at it in isolation, we risk missing out on what else needs to be in place to make a real difference. Namely:
Quality must be integral to all professional development. This includes the quality of design and delivery used to convey what teachers need to know and do. Programmes should be designed not just by subject-specific specialists but by those who also understand the process by which professionals learn. DYT’s own approach to quality assurance has been enhanced by a partnership with Sheffield Hallam University to create a bespoke and evidence-based quality assurance process. It gives schools confidence in what is being offered and provides an openness to the evidence and techniques we use. Our work is by no means unique, but government should set clear expectations on providers to do the same.
Impact and the processes by which this is evaluated are difficult to get right in education. There is always a pressing need to demonstrate impact on pupils, over and above that of participants themselves. This is a real headache for charities which many commercial supplies do not have to contend with. When working with a group of teachers or across a whole school it is possible to identify a small group of pupils who might benefit from enhanced knowledge and skills. Using them as a target population to provide feedback and assess impact is a good indicator that something form of change has happened.
Career pathways for teachers who do not take up leadership positions are unclear. As Margaret Mulholland recently wrote ‘teachers should be continuing to deliberately develop skills of observation, reflection, inquiry and, most importantly, adaptive expertise’.
The same can be said for SENCos. The National Award for SEN Coordination continues to be university based and postgraduate orientated; unlike NQPs for other leaders which takes a more practical approach. It is possible the SEND review could recommend a switch but that will require significant disruption to the current pathway. That said, making sure the SENCo role is not a professional cul-de-sac is key to enabling future leaders to have greater exposure to the complexities that young people with SEND are often dealing with.
Beyond training
A focus on training ignores a key driver of practice in schools, accountability. Not only must accountability be secured between the various players in the system, including local authorities and other health and care services, it must also work within to ensure teachers and leaders uphold the highest expectations for young people with SEND.
Ofsted and external accountability measures can hold all the various parts of the system together and provide suitable checks and balances, but if the government is serious about driving improvements in teaching in every school for young people with SEND, it must do so systemically.
We cannot expect even the very best of teachers to fight a failing, nation-wide, system which largely exists beyond the school gates.
If you would like to know more about how DYT is supporting high quality, impactful professional development and enhancing career pathways, take a look at our website.