# data[].attributes.body
Briggs, S (2016) Meeting Special Educational Needs in Primary Classrooms: Inclusion and how to do it. Routledge: London.

Burns, M. (2023). Technology in education. Paper commissioned for the 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report, Technology and Education. Available at: Background_Paper_2023_GEM_Report_EdTech-libre.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)

Claxton, G (2021) The Future of Teaching And the Myths That Hold it Back. Routledge: London

Dean, M.J. and Dean, J. (2005). Improving the primary school. Routledge.

Department for Education (2023) Analysis of the consultation responses to the SEND review: right support, right place, right time. Available at: Independent analysis of the consultation responses to the SEND review: right support, right place, right time (publishing.service.gov.uk) Accessed: 19/03/23

Department for Education (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years. Available at: SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) Accessed on 20/05/23

Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education week, 35(5), pp.20-24.

Erdem, R. (2017). Students with special educational needs and assistive technologies: A literature review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 16(1), pp.128-146.

Gentry, J.W. (1990). What is experiential learning. Guide to business gaming and experiential learning, 9, p.20.

Hayes, D. (2010). The Seductive Charms of a Cross-Curricular Approach. Education 2-13, 38(4), pp.381-387.

Isaacs, B, (2018). Understanding the Montessori approach: Early years education in practice. Routledge.

Lord, C., Elsabbagh, M., Baird, G. and Veenstra-Vanderweele, J. (2018). Autism spectrum disorder. The lancet, 392(10146), pp.508-520.

Shaeffer, S. (2019). Inclusive education: A prerequisite for equity and social justice. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(2), pp.181-192.

Spence, R (2018) Children Beyond Labels: Understanding Standardised Assessment and Managing Additional Learning Needs in Primary School. Taylor and Francis Group: London

Standards and Testing Agency (2022) Key Stage 2 Access Arrangements Guidance. Available at: 2023 key stage 2 access arrangements guidance (publishing.service.gov.uk) Accessed: 19/05/23

Wenham, L. (2019). 'It was deathly dull and boring and stressful': listening to parents' voices on primary school testing. Forum, Vol. 61.3, pp. 415-426. Lawrence and Wishart.

# data[].attributes.body
A current change in education which we are seeing, is the increased use of technology, which within my experience, has been more prevalent following the Covid-19 pandemic. Burns (2023) notes that online learning benefited those from wealthy families and left those with limited access to technology at a disadvantage. Similarly, Power et al. (2019) explain children may be disadvantaged due to a lack of resources, both at home and at school. Technology can be used to support pupils with SEND, to access classroom content (Erdem, 2017), however with schools having already restricted budgets, this may not be feasible for many settings. In an ideal world, all children with and without SEND, would have access to the technologies they need to successfully access their learning, as respondents of the 2022 SEND review stressed the importance of having technology as an educational support (DfE, 2023, p.21). Any inequality accessing education is a social justice issue, including that of having technologies (Schaeffer, 2019). Burns (2023) acknowledges the benefits which technology brings to SEND learners, including accessibility features such as zoom for learners with visual impairments, Burns (2023) also explains that the development of technology has extended learning to students with disabilities. For me, the goal of incorporating technology in the classroom is not to replace the personal interactions which teachers have with their pupils, but rather enhance and facilitate an accessible environment.

Dean and Dean (20025) explain that organisations are ever changing, including school settings. It is within the power of education practitioners to change the current ways of teaching. There is no ‘best’ way which children learn, but teachers can differentiate their teaching style to suit the needs of pupils, thus creating a better working environment to facilitate the ‘river of teaching and learning’. Change is gradual, and a team effort. SEND education specifically is ever-changing, and with the release of recent plans for reforms (DfE, 2023), educators like myself are optimistic and hopeful. It is frustrating that classrooms are often ridged and regimented, where many pupils with SEND are being failed. It is the responsibility of the next generation to progress the current system into a more modern and child-led environment where pupils are able to develop into well-rounded individuals.

# data[].attributes.body
Claxton (2021) explains that when children are forced to learn a particular set of ‘conceptual tools and frameworks’ which have little to relate to childrens lives, the focus on intellectual knowledge becomes time consuming and ‘squeezes out’ many other valuable types of learning. Within previous practice, many children with SEND struggled with concentrating for long periods of times or being spoken at, they enjoyed a more engaging and stimulating curriculum which they could relate to. However, it is not the whole traditionalist approach which is invaluable, Lord et al. (2018) explain that some students, particularly those with Autism, like adherence to routines and have difficulties with transitions, so this would fit with the traditionalist approach which lends itself to providing structured, safe and consistent learning. It is essential that children receive a knowledge rich curriculum, yet I believe there needs to be more focus developing curiosity and excitement for learning than the traditionalist approach offers.

The current standardised testing of children in English mainstream primary schools are SATS papers, which assess pupils’ retention of learning, Claxton (2021) explains that knowledge and comprehension are easy to see as they are ‘on the surface of the river’ (Appendix 2). However, testing subsequently ignores the second and third layers of ‘the river of learning and teaching’, skills and literacies and attitudes and acquisitions. Briggs (2016) explains that for children with SEND, a key measure of their progress and development should be their independence, which also is not assessed within SATs. When researching parental opinions on SATS, Wenhem (2019) found that a main concern was the negative impact that this testing would have on their children, with one parent explaining that due to the additional stress caused by SATs, her son does not want to attend school.

The Standards and Testing Agency (2022) explain that access arrangements can be made for pupils who meet a specific criteria. However, within previous experience, many SEND pupils were not given the opportunity to sit SATs tests, as they were working below expected key stage levels. As a future teacher, I believe that children are more than testing results and the affect which testing has on children’s mental health is not positive. Testing takes a traditionalist standpoint, which is preparing children for future study, motivating pupils through grading and being knowledgeable and studious people (Appendices 1 and 3). The progressive view of developing the whole child cannot and currently is not being assessed in England, which makes me personally question whether standardised testing and the consequential impact it has on pupils is worthwhile, especially when specific children do not have the opportunity to sit such papers.

# data[].attributes.body
Claxton (2021) explained that how you teach depends on what you are teaching for. Appendix 3 presents the ‘bright side’ and ‘shadow side’ of the progressive approach (Claxton, 2021). Within the ‘bright side’, progressive learners are suggested to be curious, collaborative and imaginative. These qualities could reflect a Montessori style of teaching, which from personal experiences, are often facilitated within forest schools, early years settings or schools which encourage a growth mindset. Isaacs (2018) suggests that the Montessori approach recognises that children are active learners who need choice and independence, whilst being guided by a teacher who encourages this learning. The Montessori Approach is often seen within Early Years settings, however, it could be argued that to create the ‘bright side’ of the progressive child shown within Appendix 2, this learning style should be encouraged throughout the  entirety of primary school. Within previous practice, many SEND learners thrived off of having independence and choice within their learning, and often enjoyed less structured lessons. Spence (2018) highlights, certain children will respond favourably to certain teachers and their teaching style than to others. It is important to not group SEND learners together, and acknowledge their individual needs. Every child is deserving of high quality teaching which is tailored to their additional needs.

On the ‘shadow side’ within Appendix 2, progressive children are seen as ‘feral, irresponsible and undisciplined’ (Claxton, 2021). Hayes (2010) believes that when pupils are given too much choice, children will begin to have poorer working attitudes. I believe that classrooms should be engaging, stimulating and encouraging of a growth mindset, which could minimise the opportunity for students to fit within ‘the shadow side’. Dweck (2015) explained that children who had a growth mindset often outperformed those who held a fixed mindset. Dweck (2015) acknowledged that a growth mindset is not only about effort, but it is giving children the opportunity to seek new strategies to overcome difficulties, be challenged, and have an education which encourages problem solving and independence. Gentry (1990) however, acknowledges that although children do learn best by doing, it must be under the correct conditions as ‘learning can be in error unless care is taken’. Although this is a dated piece of literature, I do believe that learning needs to be designed carefully to encourage meaningful learning. Having an experiential teaching style which is carefully designed, similar to that of a Montessori style or that which Dweck (2015) encourages, could benefit many children.

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst thinking about my values as an educator within England, it made me reflect on all of the children I had ever worked with, and the schools within which they were taught. Each child learns differently, they think differently and they often have very different outcomes from the education system. ‘Progressive’ teaching is seen as an idealistic approach to education for many practitioners in England, however, I would argue that although many teachers are incorporating a more progressive approach within their teaching, a traditionalist approach is more prevalent in mainstream primary schools across England (Claxton, 2021). I believe that although some children are best educated in specialist settings, pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) do and always will have a place in mainstream settings. In previous experience, SEND schools had a bigger priority on developing the whole child, encouraging social skills and independence. Whereas mainstream settings focus more on attainment and academic progress.

Appendix 1 presents the characteristics of children taught in both a traditional and progressive style, as set out by Claxton (2021, p.7). Claxton (2021) suggests the key characteristics of traditionalist pupils being polite, studious, and a ‘good sport’ and in contrast, progressive students encompass kindness, well-being and an adventurous spirit. A progressive education seeks to foster the well-rounded, well-balanced child, not the ‘illiterate snowflake’ which the opposers of the progressive standpoint believe (Claxton 2021). The DfE (2015) explain that with high aspirations and the right support, the majority of children will be able to achieve long-term outcomes within adulthood. As an aspiring educator with true passion for inclusivity, I resonate more with a progressive view, encouraging the development of the whole child, preparing children, including those with SEND, to flourish throughout adulthood. I also see benefits from a traditionalist approach, fostering Direct Instruction Knowledge Rich (DIKR) curriculums which focus on the transfer of knowledge; however I believe school should be more than preparing the next workforce, and focus on creating enthusiastic and creative individuals.

To do so, I believe that it reflects ‘the river of learning and teaching’ (Appendix 2), whereby three types of learning are simultaneous. Learning is not only the transfer of knowledge, but also the skills acquired within learning and the habits and attitudes which are formed (Claxton, 2021). Spence (2018, p.11) notes that children within the primary school have ‘varying aptitudes for learning and acquisition of knowledge, skills and understanding’. Spence (2018) further states that the environment within which the pupil learns will influence their acquisition of knowledge and skills. I believe that all three levels within the ‘river of learning and teaching’ are equally as important as each other and occur simultaneously. Encouraging child-led learning, promoting independence and having an equitable education for all is what I advocate for as a SEND educator.