To be brutally honest, I’d never even heard of a ‘Rapid Evidence Assessment’ or REA before I took a look this government publication, issued on the 25th of last month: “Cross-cutting themes in identifying, supporting and collaborating for children and young people with SEND: a rapid evidence review.” It’s not exactly a punchy title, but it did make interesting reading for me, as someone who has spent more than 25 years in roles focused almost exclusively on trying to improve the experiences of children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) in mainstream settings.
Almost nothing in this document is ground-breaking or even that surprising, but given I tend to spend a large proportion of my time involved in assessments and supporting schools to identify those with quite noteworthy additional needs, the following made me sit up a bit…
Mid-way through, the review refers to a noticeable gap in the tools available to help classroom and subject teachers identify and assess the needs of students with SEND, especially for those without specialist training. It says that, as a result, schools and parents often rely heavily on external professionals to step in. But as we all know, according to the SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015), schools are expected to support all children with potential SEND, whether they’ve already been formally diagnosed or not.
Students in exam
The report suggests, quite reasonably, that we need more “teacher-friendly” assessment tools i.e. more accessible, easy-to-use materials and checklists that can help teachers spot potential early signs of SEND and track learning needs consistently, without requiring specialist qualifications. That’s fine. But, I would certainly argue that at a greater understanding of special educational needs is essential, as screening tools, questionnaires and so on - in the hands of those with little or no knowledge or training - can be pretty dangerous (not to sound too alarmist!)
I remember, as a SENCO, having numerous difficult conversations subsequent to a parent being told that their child was “probably dyslexic” by a well-meaning English teacher, and I know from the work I do now that diagnostic labels such as ADHD are often used far too early on in the process of investigation, which can then lead to a focus on (waiting for and) “getting a diagnosis” rather than accessing the right sort of support and intervention in school straight away. So, I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be tools to help teachers better evaluate the needs of those in their classes, but I do think we should ensure that those who use them are trained in how to use them, how to interpret them and what to recommend depending upon the outcomes. That said, if you follow the Assess, Plan, Do, Review cycle, as per the Graduate Response detailed in the SEND Code of Practice, then straight-forward teacher monitoring and classroom support should be the first step in the process, before gradually passing the case onto the SENCO and then, as time goes on, to a specialist assessor or other relevant professional. By trying to make teachers the ‘specialists’, we’re skipping too many rungs of the ladder, in my humble opinion, and potentially jumping the gun. Essentially, assessment should, over time, spiral inwards from ‘general’ to ‘specifics’, to get to know the needs of the child in greater detail, whilst ensuring that – along the way – evidence-based intervention is provided and delivered by suitably trained school staff, so that the impact of any observed difficulties are minimised. Support should not be needs- and not diagnosis-led is what I’m trying to say.
Furthermore, the REA suggests that Initial Teacher Training should include “a solid foundation in assessment principles”. Really? I currently assess on a post-graduate course which trains keen, qualified and experienced teachers in the administration of standardised assessments and analysis of their outcomes. It’s not exactly easy, and I don’t think many teachers go into the profession hoping to learn about the interpretation of standardised scores, percentiles and confidence bands. And, I deliver training on a local SCITT course which I know crams their year with ‘stuff’ the trainees need to know in order to become competent practitioners and survive the education system in their first few years, so where they’d crowbar in the comprehensive training required to become experts in using specialist tests, goodness only knows.
Personally, I just think that schools should ensure they have solid pathways in place to identify and support those who are falling behind and/or may have learning needs. This starts with classroom teachers being able to confidently implement their setting’s monitoring systems, knowing what they need to look out for when a child is struggling to learn, and having access to a SENCO who is not frazzled. The SENCO, as ‘co-ordinator’ can then work with the specialist teachers, assessors and medical professionals who can help out with more in-depth assessment and onward sign-posting. (Yikes, you can tell AI didn’t write this blog…sorry about the waffle…)
So, the conclusion of the REA was this:
“Schools and early years settings are encouraged to prioritise early identification using a variety of methods and informants, provide high-quality teaching using evidence-based instructional approaches, and work closely with families and specialists to guide and plan effective support. A shared, whole-school commitment supported by leadership is needed to provide an environment for children and young people with SEND can meet their educational goals.”
You can’t exactly argue with the this. But I do think that we need to let teachers teach and specialists be special. Like the amazing children and young people with whom we love to work.
Rant over.
For more information, see the full article: Identifying and Supporting the needs of Children with SEND in Mainstream Settings