Welcome to the EQUALS News and Discussion Forum

Here you can view articles and reports for Special and Mainstream schools involved in the teaching of pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities. You can also read about new and exciting developments from the EQUALS charity such as new curriculum and assessment materials, training workshops and national conferences. We also welcome contributions from members, so should you wish to contribute an item, please email members@equalsoffice.co.uk
 
Visitors are also welcome to comment on any postings. To leave a comment, please click on the title of a posting. Please note all comments are moderated, so there maybe a short delay before your comment/s appear online.

EQUALS is a registered charity and has to self-finance all of its activities. Please help support the work of EQUALS and benefit from HUGE discounts on teachers curriculum resources, training and national conferences.

EQUALS is a professional organisation that seeks to deliver the highest standards of education.

Help support EQUALS in providing a voice for SLD, MLD and PMLD.

 

12 months
Cost £120.00 + VAT.

Save £500 when purchasing the first five ‘brand new’
Semi-Formal Curriculums.


click here to view sample downloads or to place an order.

 

Save £400 when purchasing the first four updated Schemes of Work
for the National Curriculum.


click here to view sample downloads or to place an order.

 


 

{ 0 comments }

EQUALS has been very busy over the past twelve months, developing new Semi-formal Curriculums for My Creativity
 

My Creativity

      • Art
      • Drama
      • Dance
      • Music

All four brand new curriculums are scheduled to be published during the Autumn term and members of EQUALS Members will benefit from HUGE discounts when purchasing these.

Members currently save £100 per subject/topic.
 


 

{ 0 comments }

EQUALS is extremely pleased to announce the availability of a new curriculum within the EQUALS Brand New Semi-formal series.
 
The World About Me will be available form September 2017.
 

The Semi-formal (SLD/MLD) Curriculums have been specifically designed and written for learners of all ages with severe/moderate learning difficulties.

Also available in the series:

  • My Communication
  • My Play and Leisure
  • My Independence
  • My Thinking and Problem Solving

semi-formal-sow-img-dec-16

EQUALS Members benefit from HUGE discounts when purchasing these. Members save £100 per subject/topic. Not a Member? Click here to become an EQUALS Member
 
The aims of the Schemes of Work project have been

  • to build on the collaborative work of Penny Lacey and Swiss Cottage School;
  • to write outstanding practice schemes of work for non National Curriculum ‘areas of learning’;
  • to involve outstanding teachers in good and outstanding schools throughout England and Wales;
  • to produce schemes of work that are available to all schools on a cost recovery (not for profit) basis through the Equals website;
  • to share best practice within a broad band of stakeholders, including both the DfE and Ofsted.

EQUALS Semi-formal (SLD/MLD) Curriculum

The general principles governing the schemes of work are that they:

  • are developmental in nature and open to personalisation – they start at the beginning of the individual pupil’s learning journey and aim for the highest level of independence possible;
  • cover all stages of education from 2 to 25 (and beyond) but are not directly related to either age or key stage. Learners fit into them where they will according to their individual abilities, interests and learning journey;
  • are not related to the National Curriculum, though the common language of the P scales is occasionally used for ease of understanding.


To view a preview, or to order online,
please click on a link below

 


 

{ 0 comments }

1 Day Conference
Shaping special schools for the future

 

The opportunties provided by academisation and free schools’

The Eden Academy, in association with EQUALS, held a national conference in London on the 7th July 2017. Both organisations have a strong history of actively developing and supporting the work of schools and professionals working with children and young people with special needs. This leading-edge conference was of particular interest to special schools’ senior leaders and governors who were considering academisation or forming a MAT and/or opening a free school.

It was a valuable opportunity for delegates to understand the dramatically changing educational landscape and to help guide them into making an informed decision about their school’s future.
 
EQUALS is currently planning further conferences and is considering potential topics and venues. Suggestions/Requests are always welcome. Please email paul@equalsoffice.co.uk
 


 

{ 0 comments }

Thursday 22nd November 2017
Venue: Ivy House School, Derby
Course Leader: Steve Cullingford-Agnew, Senior Lecturer in Education, University of Northampton.

Delegates will gain knowledge and understanding of the Sherborne Developmental approach to physical education and relationship play for children with special educational needs. The course is practical in nature and is designed to meet the requirements of the one day Certificated Course, ‘An Introduction to Sherborne Developmental Movement’, recognised by the International Sherborne Foundation.

The course will cover:

  • An understanding of the principals of developmental movement and its application
  • The appropriate teaching and learning strategies using the movement approach
  • Building the confidence of specialists and non-specialists in developing movement skills for pupils with special educational needs

The course is designed for teachers and support staff. The workshop numbers will be limited to 30 places due to the practical nature of the day.

£165.00 + VAT members, £195.00 + VAT non-members

 

 


 

{ 0 comments }

Thursday 2nd November 2017, University of Manchester

Keith Park, Teacher, Writer, Performer and Musician and
Carrie Lennard, Special Needs Music Consultant

Morning
Music Creativity for students with PMLD and complex needs using iPads and the ThumbJam app “The improvise Approach” with Carrie Lennard

Carrie Lennard will share The Improvise Approach with you, showing you how to empower your students with their own musical creativity using iPads, ThumbJam, specially composed music and selected percussion instruments. This is an inclusive music experience where people of different abilities can all play together and create harmonious music.

The session will cover:

  • What The Improvise Approach is all about – making music freely, creatively and harmoniously.
  • Setting up the ThumbJam app on your iPad ready to make musical sounds.
  • Playing and exploring ThumbJam for yourself (solo using your headphones) and hearing how good your melodies sound with the backing tracks.
  • Playing together in small groups supported by The Improvise Approach backing tracks.
  • Adding selected percussion instruments and a microphone or 2 for a truly inclusive music experience.
  • Question and Answer.

For this training, please bring an iPad plus headphones (iPod or iPhone ok too).
To download ThumbJam go to – https://appsto.re/gb/Emgnu.i
If you’d like more detailed information about The Improvise Approach before the day, take a look at the website www.improviseapproach.com .
The Improvise Approach ebook at https://itun.es/gb/oGeceb.l – available from the iBooks Store with 10 built-in music backing tracks or alternatively, you can purchase just the music tracks from iTunes at – https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/improvise-one/id1140431846

Afternoon
‘Interactive Storytelling’ with Keith Park

‘Interactive Storytelling’ is the basis of Keith’s workshop. This approach to storytelling uses a very simple call and response method, in which one person calls out a line of the story and everyone else repeats it.

Using this method, delegates will explore various story scripts: humorous verse, improvised name games, pantomime, Bible Stories in Cockney Rhyming Slang, sea shanties, Shakespeare, and who knows what else. It requires no costumes, no props, no lighting, no experience in drama and storytelling, and is just a lot of good fun.

Delegates are welcome to film the story performances to take them back to their own workplaces and use them there. Google ‘Keith Park Storytelling’ for web links and references.

£165.00 + VAT members, £195.00 + VAT non-members

 


 

{ 0 comments }

EQUALS is extremely pleased to announce the availability of the first four revised Schemes of Work (SoW) specifically written for pupils with learning difficulties who are working below age related expectations.

These four guides cover English, Mathematics, Science and PSHE & C.  All four can be purchased individually or as part of a pack.

The aims of the revised Schemes of Work project have been

  • to completely update the original EQUALS English, Maths, Science and PSHE & C SoW and align these to the 2014 National Curriculum revisions
  • to produce practical schemes of work that are available to all schools on a not for profit basis through the EQUALS website
  • to share best practice within a broad band of stakeholders, including both the DfE and Ofsted.

To download some sample pages, view prices or to place an order, please click here


 

{ 0 comments }

Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)
Curriculum & Assessment Updates from Elaine Ellis
(November 2016)

Schools that are members of EQUALS can claim a 10% discount on purchasing a SEND Early Excellence tracker.

Please see the latest EYFS update for further details, or contact the EQUALS office about becoming a member.

This offer applies to both special and mainstream schools.

{ 0 comments }

SMART targets are not the best way to set learning intentions for either SLD or PMLD, and may indeed be the worst way. There are a number of reasons for this:

  1. they make motivational teaching problematic and therefore take away the necessary condition of target ownership;
  2. they can appear to offer clarity of purpose but actually limit opportunities to learn;
  3. they tend to rule out a constant learning approach by narrowly focussing achievement;
  4. they can be over-reliant on shallow, rote learned facts and skills.

 

A google search reveals that SMART targets seem to have been first devised by George Doran, an American businessman, in the early 1980’s. What is also interesting is that the acronym has changed over the years with a number of versions being on offer. I have long been confused by Achievable and Realistic since I can’t see how they differ from each other. Haughey (2014) for example prefers Agreed Upon, whilst the original from Doran (1981) offered Assignable. Both ‘A’s directly infer something fundamental to the origins of SMART targets but which are missing in later educational versions, that is, the centrality of ownership. For Haughey, the ownership of the target and the motivation to succeed at the target are key to the achievement of that target, and of course this must be so. If someone is not motivated, why would they expend time and energy on achievement? The first fundamental principles of any mnemonic must be that it makes sense and I would therefore suggest that whatever the A and R might stand for, they must, if they are to remain true to the original sense of the mnemonic, effectively mean ownership and motivation. They CANNOT remain as Achievable AND Realistic, because neither of these is directly related to motivation.

As it appears however, that the educational version of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) is not entirely true to the original, this creates even more additional problems when related to those with SLD and PMLD. Taking Penny Lacey’s 2010 questioning of SMART targets as a starting point, she refers back to the principles of ‘assessment for learning’ by looking at the educational purpose of assessment. This may in turn she argues, be derived from Black et al’s (2003) seminal work on the subject.

(Black et al’s) assessment for learning is concerned with how assessment can inform teaching and learning: how evidence from learning is used to plan what comes next. Learners’ voices are at the heart of assessment for learning as they decide what they are going to learn and how they are going to learn it. (Lacey, 2010, 17, my empahasis).

This again comes back to ownership and my overarching concern that learners with PMLD and SLD will, by the very nature of their learning difficulties, have targets thrust upon them. More on this later.
 
Ensuring the target has been achieved

The logic behind SMART is that un SMART, fuzzy, or perhaps SCRUFFY targets make it difficult to ascertain whether the target has been successfully achieved. This does however, very much depend on the specificity of the target and the degree of achievement. It is possible to have a loose learning intention and a varying degree of achievement, as for example, when achievement is (i) less than expected (ii) expected (iii) more than expected on a scale of three; or when achievement is (i) a lot less than expected (ii) less than expected (iii) expected (iv) more than expected (v) a lot more than expected on a scale of five. SLD and PMLD teaching and assessment has a long history of using similar gradations, as in the achievement of a target never, occasionally, frequently or consistently.

This point is strengthened when one considers that it might be overly and in the end, self-defeatingly simplistic to be so black and white in the assessment of achievement. A SMART target is achieved or it is not achieved, there is no room for dubiety; but I wonder if life is like that for anyone. I start my day with a list of 10 things to do; is my day a failure if I only achieve 7 on this list. Probably not, in fact this could be considered a considerable success. What about achieving 4, is that a success or a failure? Well it could be either, especially if I’ve actually achieved a couple of somethings that were not on my list at the start of the day but still needed doing. This is the great advantage of NOT having a black and white, all or nothing approach, since we are not closing ourselves off to accidental or additional learning, or indeed gradations of achievement. This might be considered to be a constant learning approach which constantly looks for learning opportunities, irrespective of what has been planned. Simply because an achievement has not been forecast does not mean that the achievement is not worthwhile.
 
Motivation must be a key to learning

Further, within the SMART concept, both Specific and Time Bound present real difficulties especially when the targets are being chosen for the learner, as will be inevitable with learners with very complex needs and severe/profound communication difficulties.

GAS (Goal Attainment Schedule) as defined by Turner-Stokes (2016) and used by a few special schools to determine ‘good’ progress, derives from the NHS and specifically appears in relation to rehabilitation. This means that the SMART target agreed on with the patient has to have the patient’s clear approval, otherwise s/he won’t co-operate in its attainment. Medical staff may push the patient further than the patient believes s/he can go, but the patient must believe that some progress is both desirable and achievable. That is, the individual must be able to perceive the big picture to be able to work out that the pain, discomfort and effort is worthwhile. If a pupil with PMLD or SLD cannot see that big picture (because they have PMLD or SLD!) encouraging them to ignore, overcome, look beyond the pain/discomfort/effort becomes incredibly difficult and entirely reliant on short term rewards. This will do nothing for generalisation because the isolated activity is actively divorced from the big picture.
 
Limiting opportunities to learn

GAS works as a measure of ‘good’ because it factors in (i) the desirability of the achievement and (ii) the difficulty of the achievement and multiplies these (in a very complicated mathematical formula) by the rate of progress in scale of 3 or 5 noted above.

Unfortunately, in the world of SLD/PMLD education, staff may well be pushing learners to achieve a specific something that they have no interest in achieving, or may not be able to achieve when they want to achieve it. Let us take for example, a broad (and very un SMART) learning intention to encourage William towards independent movement’ arrived at through multi-disciplinary discussions which included William’s family. To smarten this loose learning intention up, we can use our knowledge that William (who is working consistently and over time at around P6) loves the sensory room and enjoys following the sensory trails that the school uses to enable independent movement throughout the school. A SMART target can then be devised, to the effect that ‘William will follow a tactile track and stop at the sensory room object five times a week’. This assumes his continued desire to travel to the sensory room, but has all sorts of automatic limitations built in. How often is the sensory room free? Is there staffing available to escort him when he can go? What will be the point of travelling to the sensory room if he can’t spend time in there?  Will he have the energy and the desire to go when the sensory room is available? Does this mean that he is only working on his movement target 5 times a week, and if so why? If we make this 15 times a week, won’t this just increase the complications of sensory room and supporting staff availability?

Such specifics may well have the effect of restricting Wlliam’s opportunities to learn because it makes the generalisation of any specific skill learned, particularly difficult. When the purpose of the goal is to encourage him towards independent movement, narrowing this into one particular movement in one particular place at one particular time (when the sensory room is free) doesn’t make sense. If we have the freedom to explore the opportunities for a much looser learning intention, we may find 55 (rather than 5 or 15) weekly opportunities for extending his learning through a SCRUFFY (Student-led, Creative, Relevant, Unspecified, Fun, For, Youngsters) approach. In the interests of engaging with SMART targets we may well have to narrow the learning not broaden it. And it is difficult to see what benefits there are to this. Penny Lacey’s warning of the dangers of narrowing broad aims into SMART targets (Lacey, 2010) should not automatically be put to one side on the basis of her whimsy, though there is undoubtedly an element of tongue in cheek about the word. SCRUFFY targets allow staff and learners to explore LOTS of different avenues to achieve the same desired goal, and because there will not be a single road to travel, as in a SMART target, learners are able to exercise far more control in the direction and pace the of learning as well as maintaining their motivation and experience generalising opportunities to learn.
 
The dominance of shallow, rote learned skills

‘Sometimes, when assessing children’s calculation skills, rote learning can mask underlying procedural or conceptual difficulties. A child may know that ‘3+2 is 5’, in the same way as they know their sister’s name is Phoebe. However, it should not be assumed that the child understands how to add up, or what is meant by the word ‘add’. Assessment should therefore consider children’s understanding of procedures and principles as well as the ability to recall number facts.’  (Gillum, 2014; p279/80 author’s emphasis).

We need to continue to be aware of valuing only that which can be easily measured, since this this is likely to lead to compartmentalisation of learning, followed by compartmentalisation of achievement. Little thought or consideration is given to contextualised, deep and meaningful learning that makes sense to the learner and which the learner can actually use. Shallow learning – the rote remembering of unrelated or isolated facts or skills – is given high priority because assessment of progress is considered the most important part of teaching. One of the most significant pronouncements of the Rochford Review (2016) was to recognise that an over-reliance on assessment leads to teaching to the next step schemas which then drive the curriculum. Such schemas make much of rote learned ‘abilities’ which may in fact, not be abilities at all because understanding is so often absent.

 

In conclusion, SMART targets for pupils and students with either profound or severe learning difficulties may well be stupid, because they can form a barrier to both learning and achievement by being overly prescriptive. The SMART target approach is unfortunately, yet another example of theories applicable to neuro-typical, conventionally developing learning that are universally applied without thought. They are I would suggest, neither helpful nor smart.
 
Peter Imray, March 2017.

 

References

Black P, Harrison C, Lee C, Marshall B and William D (2003). Assessment for Learning: putting it into practice. Maidenhead. Open University Press.

Doran G T (1981) There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives. Management Review: 70 (11) 35-36.

Gillum J (2014) Assessment with children who experience difficulty in mathematics. Support for Learning. 29 (3) 275-291

Haughey D (2014) A Brief History of Smart Goals. Available at https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/brief-history-of-smart-goals.php Accessed 12th February 2017

Lacey P (2010) Smart and Scruffy Targets. The SLD Experience. 57: 16-21.

Rochford Review(2016) Final Report www.gov.uk/government/publications/rochford-review-final-report

Turner-Stokes L (2016) Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) in Rehabilitation: A practical guide. London. Kings College. Available at https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/research/divisions/cicelysaunders/attachments/Tools-GAS-Practical-Guide.pdf

 

 

{ 0 comments }

People may wish to read a very recent SLD forum post, which is in italics, and my response, which is not, both below. I am becoming increasingly interested in this issue of non-engagement in the formal education system. The traditional response seems to be an automatic rejection of the learner’s point of view by the education system as it stands, and I wonder whether we ought to be seriously reviewing this approach. It would not be difficult to imagine this young man in five years time as now having a label of ‘mental health’ problems as seemingly do all of the children who express what used to be called Social Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD) and is now called Social, Emotional and Mental Health Needs (SEMH) in the UK at least. I find it VERY disturbing that overt rejection of the norm is now automatically described as madness!

We have a student with a diagnosis of ASD and Tourette’s.  He is working at about L2/3 NC level (old money) – he is 13 ½ .

The Tourette’s developed in the last couple of years.  He has always been very distractible but this is increasing to the extent that he can only focus for a few seconds at a time.  For example he often can’t get through a whole sentence without losing focus and retreating into his mind.   He can attend for long periods of time on favoured activities (talking about video games, drawing).  These favoured activities may be interrupted by tics and some noises but only for a few seconds.

He has tics and some noises associated with the Tourette’s but he is also almost permanently playing out a fantasy video game in his head that has accompanying noises and hand movements.  He describes this as dreaming the game and sometimes he enjoys this and may laugh to himself and sometimes, when asked to focus, he might say, with a little distress, ‘but I just can’t stop the dreams’.

He is also developing what might be OCD type behaviours (tapping books on table several times, touching hand rail in a particular way) and whilst I am on my steep OCD learning curve I wonder if there are any strategies to inhibit the development of OCD?

We are struggling to unpick what is an ASD type internal world/special interest, what is Tourette’s and what is OCD.   We are waiting for a follow up on the Tourette’s diagnosis.

We use visual timetables and a work schedule, motivators, time out, breaks, social stories and other visuals to try to alert him to his lack of focus and ‘game playing’ but as we aren’t entirely sure what is internal world stuff and what is Tourette’s I am worried we may do more harm than good.  We have also tried to work with his parents to change the amount of time he spends on computer games at home.

Has anyone got any ideas about how we can unpick what is causing his huge difficulty and any strategies to help this boy spend enough time in the real world to learn.

Thanks

J.

 

 

Hi J

This is very interesting and is perhaps a typical example of the wave of very complex learners that all schools (and especially all special schools) have been increasingly involved with over the last 10 years or so. These are the learners that Barry Carpenter calls ‘new generation’ and who are ‘pedagogically bereft’ (Carpenter et al, 2016; Carpenter, 2011), that is, disengaged with and from the education system. It is not that your young man cannot concentrate and attend, he can clearly do that very well indeed, it’s that he does not wish and sees no purpose to concentrating and attending to stuff that for him is boring and meaningless. The problem is, he has a point! Unfortunately the UK education system is set up to condition people to be like ourselves; the subjects are the ones we worked on, the school/class/learning structure is the one known and familiar to us, the outcomes are the ones we want for ourselves, which might loosely be described as ‘helping this boy spend enough time in the real world to learn’. But to learn what, and what for? Clearly, whatever the ‘real world’ is to him does not involve him doing the stuff that you want him to do. So he disengages by slipping into his own world and daydreaming, and the older he gets the more powerful this tactic becomes. Perhaps we should count our blessings as at least he is not displaying extremes of challenging behaviour, as so many others do.

It might however help if we looked at his area of special interest in a different way, that is from his perspective. Were for example his obsessional behaviours directed to a cause that you and the school could perceive as being ‘useful’, matters might be different. I would imagine that Mozart’s, Turner’s and Einstein’s ‘education’ involved very little other than music, art and maths respectively otherwise they would not have become the geniuses that they were. They were allowed to do this because their educators could see these ‘obsessions’ as being central to their lives. They didn’t want their charges to have an education like everyone else and be like everyone else. Our education system demands that we try and make children think like us, learn like us, be like us, have our ambitions and dreams, live in our real world. That is fine for most, but clearly not for all.

It sounds to me that you are doing all the right things in your attempts to steer him out of his preferences and towards a more rounded education with your emphasis on ‘visual timetables and a work schedule, motivators, time out, breaks, social stories and other visuals’. But it will require his co-operation, and it seems that he is not willing to give it!

Student voice must be listened to if education is not just going to be about educating those who are willing to comply. This means listening to behaviours and acting upon what these behaviours are telling us, not merely insisting that everyone does the same. We must give children and young people a reason to belong, and whilst it may be ideal that this happens in the same classroom, in the same school and studying the same curriculum, the evidence tells us that this is not possible, however much we might like it to be so. Sadly, there is a now real question to be asked within our current education system; would we now allow Mozart and Turner and Einstein to focus on their areas of special interest so that they could become the best that they could be and do the best that they could do? Probably not!

All the best

Peter Imray

 

References

Carpenter B (2011) Pedagogically Bereft!: improving learning outcomes for children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. British Journal of Special Education. 38 (1) 38-43.

Carpenter B, Carpenter J, Egerton J and Cockbill B (2106) The Engagement for Learning Framework: connecting with learning and evidencing progress for children with autism spectrum conditions. Advances in Autism. 2 (1); 12-23.

 

{ 0 comments }

Hi All

I’ve been working on a post-Rochford Basket of Assessment Approach (after Swiss Cottage School, 2014) and I thought some people may be interested.  This is my updated version.
 

Some explanatory points.

  1. Despite having looked at lots of different alternatives I’m still of the view that MAPP (for SLD) and Routes (or Quest) for Learning for PMLD are the most convincing. I understand Mike Sissons is re-writing MAPP, but in any event I’d be surprised if he radically changed the Continuum of Skill Development (CSD) that is the heart beat of MAPP or the principle of spread sheet recording which makes quantitative measurements SO much easier. It is perfectly possible to put any learning intention, including any derived from RfL, into the MAPP spreadsheet and this means that both MAPP and RfL are ideal for both qualitative and quantitative data. There seems little doubt however, that schools’ use of both MAPP and RfL must be completely wholehearted. It is not possible to pick these off the shelf at the end of every year (or even term) and expect them to work effectively. All school staff need to be really comfortable with how they work and that takes time and commitment.
  2.  

  3. There is no denying that SCERTS is very good, giving lots of detailed and cross-disciplinary information, but it is also very complex and very time consuming. It is the old adage of the more you put in the more you get out; however, I am not convinced that the additional information gained from the SCERTS process is worth the extra effort, time and complexity involved. This is especially so with a Basket of Assessments Approach because this very process views the assessment through a number of different angles and perspectives anyway.
  4.  

  5. There seems no reason to stop using the P scales as a broad academic assessment, even though Rochford suggests we will no longer have to use them as a statutory assessment tool. The P scales have always provided a common language and an essential part of both SLD and PMLD definitions and a simple yearly single P scale assessment gives invaluable information. The point with this is however, not to spend a huge amount of time on assessing the yearly P scale attainment, since the detailed information will be obtained from other sources such as MAPP and RfL. This means that more intense P scale measurements like Pivats are largely pointless since you will want (and need) to know that a learner is still on P4 or now on P7, though believing that a learner is P4 (iii) or P7 (ii) brings very little extra to the table. I do not believe that there are any circumstances where the use of B Squared can be justified.
  6.  

  7. The middle sections are directly related to Rochford and depend on whether pupils are engaged with ‘subject specific learning’ (SSL) or not. I take this to be National Curriculum (NC) subjects, particularly Maths and English, and is a recognition that SSL may not be the optimal model for all children. Again, this is a judgement call, but for me it is MUCH more difficult to build a case for any NC subject, including English and Mathematics (and by reference Literacy and Numeracy) for those with SLD and PMLD since it is a defining characteristic that all those with SLD and PMLD will be working consistently and over time at levels below (and usually well below) the subject’s starting point (DfE, 2012; Imray and Colley, in print). Having the start of a curriculum model as the summit of ambition cannot be a healthy state of affairs for either pedagogy or curriculum and might indeed, constitute a startling lack of ambition for all learners on the PMLD and SLD spectrums!
  8.  

  9. The IPKeS Standards OR the Engagement Scales are Rochford requirements but only up to KS2. It is interesting to note that Rochford is entirely silent on KS3, 4 and 5. I cannot believe that KS3 will continue to be subject to the P scales and can therefore only assume that Rochford takes the (unspoken) view that if pupils haven’t got the 3R’s by the time they’re 11, they’re probably not going to get them. This seems to me to be an eminently sensible position.
  10.  

  11. Rochford is very clear that a wide variety of evidence is going to be increasingly important, and one must assume that this should include qualitative evidence.

     
     

    Rather than following the letter of the P scales, it is much more important that knowledge, concepts and skills are acquired in a range of contexts and situations, according to a varied and stimulating curriculum. Assessment should be similarly varied to evaluate pupils’ attainment and progress in different ways according to their age, interests and needs. (Rochford Review, 2016, p14)
     
     
    We need therefore to make sure that any qualitative evidence is as robust as possible and the best way of doing that is through extended longitudinal studies of as many learners as we can, and perhaps even, all learners in the school. The use of digital recording opportunities makes this a much less onerous option than even 10 years ago, especially as teachers are likely to be using such evidence within MAPP and RfL anyway. Kate Davies of the SLD Forum (and of Ash Lea School in Nottingham) speaks highly of Evidence for Learning as a suitable app for collation of qualitative evidence.

  12.  

  13. I have put it in but I remain sceptical of the benefits of KS4 and KS5 accreditation schemes such as offered by ASDAN and others, though many may well be used as schemes of work. I do not see how Ofsted can take seriously any accreditation scheme that only requires continued life to guarantee a pass, and failure is impossible. The work required of staff (rather than students!) is however considerable, and quite possibly an unnecessary distraction since no worthwhile summative or formative information can be forthcoming from the actual accreditation procedure.
  14.  

  15. Given the DfE’s (2015) suggestion that all schools need to follow up on post school outcomes, it seems pertinent to spend some time researching what happens to learners after they leave school. One would assume that this to a degree, should inform curriculum development, since the curriculum should in large part be related to preparing learners for their next stage, whatever that may be.

In relation to external moderation, Rochford are keen that schools form monitoring clusters and it makes sense that schools open themselves up to a ‘critical friend’ approach in order to ensure that any and all data is as objectively reached as possible.

One final issue, still to be resolved: how do schools judge ‘good’ progress? This is a REALLY thorny problem. I can point people to GAS (Goal Attainment Scaling) commonly used to assess levels of rehab in the NHS, and clicking on the link referenced in Turner-Stokes (2016) below gives you a free download of the principles and a handy set of guides on how to use them. GAS works on the basis of quite a complex mathematical formula which factors in both difficulty and relevance of targets, though thankfully, an excel spreadsheet provided makes this easier to assess. Be cautious however, because they’re keen on SMART targets and Penny Lacey’s warning that those with PMLD are ‘poor consumers of SMART targets’ (Lacey, 2009) surely also applies to most with SLD as well.

I am worried that Ofsted’s obsession with defining good progress will lead us into the same sort of cul-de-sacs that the P scales led us and perhaps we need to have another debate around SMART and SCRUFFY targets, but this post is long enough already!

All the best

Peter

peter.imray@hotmail.co.uk

 

 

References

DfE (2012) Glossary of special educational needs (SEN) terminology. Accessed 8th February 2016.
 
DfE (2015) Commission on Assessment without Levels. Final Report  Accessed 26th November 2015.
 
Imray P and Colley A (in print) Inclusion is Dead: Long Live Inclusion. London. Routledge.
 
Kiresuk T and Sherman R (1968) Goal attainment scaling: a general method of evaluating comprehensive mental health programmes. Community Mental Health Journal. 4: 443-453.
 
Lacey P. (2009) Developing Thinking and Problem Solving Skills. The SLD Experience. 54: 19-24.
 
Rochford Review (2016) The Rochford Review: final report. Review of assessment for pupils working below the standard of national curriculum tests. Standards and Testing Agency.
 
Turner-Stokes L (2016) Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) in Rehabilitation: A practical guide. London. Kings College.

 

 

 

{ 0 comments }

I recently posted new definitions of Severe Learning Difficulties (SLD) and Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD) written by Andrew Colley and myself on the SLD Forum, asking for comments and views. I was hoping that I would get some intelligent responses that would enhance the definitions and so it proved. The piece below is a summation of the comments along with the revised definitions of the two groups’ learning characteristics.

There have been a couple of ‘concerns’ over the fraught issue of labelling, that is, the fear that putting a label on a child will merely encourage teachers to teach to that label, to not see beyond the label; that knowing the individual is much more important than knowing about the label; and at the more extreme ‘ableist’ end, that there is no such thing as a child with autism or Down’s or SLD or PMLD, there is only the child. Yes, we understand these concerns, but they are clearly concerns that have no faith in the teaching profession as being thinking, sentient beings. Of course one child with autism or Down’s or SLD or PMLD is not the same as every child with autism or Down’s or SLD or PMLD. Why would they be? It’s like saying that one child with glasses is the same as every child with glasses. Why would they be? I do not know of any good teacher who does not have a clear understanding that all children are different and all children are themselves, individual, unique. BUT, some children share common learning characteristics and it is extraordinarily useful for teachers to know that children with autism are likely to have difficulties with …………… and children with PMLD are likely to have difficulties with ……………To not know this and to not be prepared for this because we don’t like the idea of ‘labels’ seems to me to be both unprofessional and unnecessary. Further, these are defining learning characteristics, they do not define the child, any more than the wearing of glasses defines the child. Good teachers will not be limited by the label; they will see it as a starting point. Inexperienced teachers may initially see it as an end point but will soon learn, as all inexperienced teachers learn, to see the child behind the label. Poor teachers may well however, only see the label. To base a pedagogy on the failings of poor teachers seems to us irresponsible, crass and immensely disrespectful to the vast majority of teachers who understand that to regard someone has having PMLD or SLD does not and never will, define the child. And so we come full circle; if we’re going to have the terms, they might as well be concise and make sense!

As for the definitions themselves, there were several questions over our over egging the ‘multiple’ of Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties, so that it appeared as though the learner had to have multiple physical difficulties. We agree that this is not the case, that is, it is perfectly possible for someone to have a profound learning difficulty without necessarily having attendant and multiple physical difficulties. We have altered the definition accordingly. There was also a question mark over the suggestion that children with PMLD might use formal language. We agree that that this, though possible, is very rare and again, have altered the description. Lastly there were several posts which questioned the use of the P scales as markers of academic ability because the Rochford Review had recommended that they cease as a statutory measure of assessment. However, their cessation as a statutory measure does not mean that we should cease using them as a common language of approximate cognitive developmental levels. The Rochford Review (rightly) accepted that they were not fit for purpose as a comparative measure of attainment, but they were never designed for that in the first place, so this is hardly surprising. There is however, an extremely strong case for continuing to use the P scales as broad markers and to make them more internationally known, simply because they do provide that common language.

Here then are the two definitions re-defined, with the considerable help from the SLD Forum, and considerable thanks from Andrew and me.
 
Pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD) are on a spectrum that indicates that they have profoundly complex learning needs. In addition to profound learning difficulties, pupils are likely, but not axiomatically, to have other significant difficulties such as physical disabilities, sensory impairment and/or severe medical condition(s). Pupils require a high level of adult support, both for their learning needs and also for their personal care. They are likely to need sensory stimulation and will need a curriculum which recognises that all learners will to a greater or lesser degree, have difficulties with object permanence, contingency awareness, declarative communications, making choices, learning by imitation and following instruction. Some pupils communicate by gesture, eye pointing or symbols and a very few by very simple single word language. They will be working academically, consistently, and over time, within P-scale range P1-P3, perhaps reaching some elements of P4, throughout their whole school careers to the age of 19 and beyond. (Imray and Colley, in print)
 
Pupils with severe learning difficulties (SLD) are on a spectrum which indicates that they have significant intellectual and cognitive impairments and may also have difficulties in mobility and coordination. Pupils may use objects of reference, sign, symbols and/or language to communicate, though all will to a greater or lesser degree have severe communication difficulties, which will affect both expressive and receptive communication skills. Other difficulties will be experienced to a greater or lesser degree in understanding abstract concepts, maintaining concentration and attention, retrieving both short term and long term memory, utilising sequential memory, exercising working memory, processing information, retrieving general knowledge, thinking, problem solving, and generalising previously learned skills. They will be working academically, consistently, and over time, within the P scale range P4-P8 for all of their school careers to the age of 19 and beyond, though some may reach into the opening levels of a neuro-typical academic curriculum such as the UK or Australian National Curriculums or a US Standards Based Curriculum. (Imray and Colley, in print)
 
(November 2016)
 
Reference
Imray P and Colley A (in print) Inclusion is Dead: Long Live Inclusion. Oxford. Routledge.
 

{ 0 comments }

Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) – News
November 2016

Hello colleagues, just a few updates…..

 
Early Years Baseline Assessment:

The DfE have recently announced that the EYFS Profile assessment will remain statutory for another two years, until 2018. In April, the DfE also confirmed that the government are continuing to support on-entry baseline assessment, and will fund schools to continue to use any of the accredited baseline assessments for 2016.

A large majority of schools (12,500) have opted to choose the Early Excellence baseline assessment (EExBA), due to the fact that this model is a ‘non-invasive’ observational assessment. This assessment is firmly rooted by the principles of the EYFS, with a key focus on the Leuven Scales of Well-Being and Involvement and the Characteristics of Effective Learning.

EQUALS have endorsed the inclusive approach that the Early Excellence assessment has embraced, and this is also apparent in their new tracking tool (EExAT) that has very recently been launched…..
 
Tracking and Monitoring Progress:

The EEx Tracker is designed to support teachers to identify and track small steps of progress, whatever the child’s SEND and starting points are, based on the early developmental milestones of the EYFS, working towards the Early Learning Goals. This tracker also incorporates the important and unique learning traits linked to each child’s well-being, involvement levels and the EYFS learning characteristics.

The tool provides useful exemplification materials for each stage of development which includes examples for children with SEND, including PMLD.
 
Early Excellence have agreed that members of EQUALS that purchase the tracker in 2016-2017 will receive a 10% discount.

In order to claim this discount, and for more information on the tracker you can contact Louise Jackson : louise@earlyexcellence.com

If you would like to know more about the EEx Tracker in relation to SEND, Early Excellence are providing FREE ‘drop-in’ SEND Network sessions at both their Huddersfield and London centres in November. For further information please contact Louise at the above address, or phone: 01422 311314
 
Future EYFS Workshops:

The EQUALS Characteristics of Learning workshops for Early Years practitioners have been very popular, and teachers have been asking ‘what next?’. We are, therefore, hoping to run some follow-up sessions next year with the purpose of continuing to explore what the learning characteristics mean for children with SEND, and to develop some guidance materials and case studies  based on the characteristics of Effective Learning. Please look-out for these – Further details to follow.

Best Wishes and enjoy the rest of the term.

Elaine Ellis

{ 0 comments }

 
Where are we now?

Policy Paper Summary

This policy paper is based on a whole day seminar which enabled an early review of the new SEN / disability policy and legislation and which was organised by the SEN Policy Research Forum in June 2016.

Impact of the legislation on parental assurance by Brian Lamb (Consultant): Brian concluded that the reforms are in the context of a major squeeze on LA and Health budgets. Limits to the ability to deliver a reasonable level of provision could undermine some clear gains intended by the reforms. Early evidence suggests that while there is more to do to achieve a decisive shift in culture, parent carer forums are having a positive effect on strategic planning through the Local Offer and the Schools Information Report. For new recipients, the EHC Plan process is working for a majority of families in improving confidence and co-production. However, evidence from wider parent carer surveys and the recent acceleration in tribunal cases indicates some doubts about whether the system has secured the confidence of a significant number of families.

Impact of the legislation on school practices and SENCO role by Kate Browning (SENCo trainer): Kate concluded that the reforms for the most part have had a positive impact on the SENCO role and school practices, particularly when school leadership embraces the reform principles, such as collaboration with parents and carers of children and young people with SEN and recognition of the importance of the SENCo role. However, the SEND reforms are affected by shifts in mainstream educational policy and practice that are not aligned with improving SEND outcomes. Individual schools, multi academy trusts and local areas are taking different approaches to the implementation of the reforms which calls for more detailed research.

Impact of legislation from a national perspective by Andre Imich (SEN and Disability Professional Adviser, DFE): Andre concluded that implementation was moving forward positively; the varied evidence indicating that the vision for the new system was starting to be embedded. The examples of success need to be celebrated, but there remain significant roads to travel as the process involves an evolutionary process of change. The volume of transfers from statements to EHC plans, the capacity of local authorities, and difficulties in fully realising joint-agency working continue to challenge the system. Nevertheless, most of those involved in the SEN system believe in the new ways of working, in co-production with families and in embracing collectively the opportunities afforded to achieve improved outcomes and life chances.

Impact of the legislation on local authorities by Chris Harrison (SEND consultant): Chris concluded that reforms had sparked welcome changes by shifting ways of working through engagement with families. Though the reforms are ‘the right thing to do’, their implementation has proved a major challenge with uneven change across LAs. The reforms came at a time of austerity which has led to financial constraints, restructuring and the refocusing of LA attention away from schools. He suggests some simple ways to prevent LAs slipping into a negative cycle.
 
Peter Imray ( November 2016)
EQUALS Director of Developments

 

The paper is also available for downloading at:

SEN Policy Research Forum – blogs.exeter.ac.uk

 

{ 0 comments }

Click here to view Peter Imray’s report on

The Rochford Review Recommendations: An Analysis.

Firstly, a slight warning; these are recommendations not definites. Other previous government sponsored reviews have made recommendations that have not been carried through – The Salt Review of 2010 recommended distinct teacher training for SLD and PMLD for example. However, given both the DfE’s and Ofsted’s significant involvement in the deliberations and the fact that there are no real cost factors here, I would be very surprised if they were not accepted.
 
Peter Imray (October 2016).

 

{ 0 comments }

Contact Us

EQUALS, C/o Hadrian School,
Bertram Crescent,
Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE15 6PY.
Tel: 0191 272 1222
Fax: 0191 226 1919
E: admin@equalsoffice.co.uk