# data[].attributes.body
Bower, V. (2021) Debates in Primary Education. London: Routledge.
Briggs, S. (2016) Meeting special educational needs in primary classrooms: inclusion and how to do it. London: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.
Christodoulou, D. (2014) Seven Myths About Education. London: Routledge.
Claxton, G. (2021). The Future of Teaching And the Myths That Hold It Back. London: Routledge.Cowley, S. (2018) The ultimate guide to differentiation: achieving excellence for all. London: Bloomsbury Education.
Department for Education., Department of Health and Social Care (2023) Special Educational Needs

and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) Improvement Plan (CP 800) Available at:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file

/1139561/SEND_and_alternative_provision_improvement_plan.pdf (Accessed: 14 March 2023).

Gajewski, A. and Forlin, C. (2017) Ethics, Equity, and Inclusive Education.Bingley: Emerald Publishing

Limited.

Rosenshine, B. (1997) ‘The Case for Explicit. Teacher-led, Cognitive Strategy Instruction’, American Educational Research Association, pp.1-8.
Spence, R. (2019) Children Beyond Labels: Understanding Standardised Assessment and Managing Additional Learning Needs in Primary School. Milton: Taylor & Francis Group.
Sterling, S. (2001) Sustainable Education – Re-visioning learning and change, Schumacher Briefing no6. Dartington: Schumacher Society/Green Books.

# data[].attributes.body
1638

# data[].attributes.body
Many challenges currently face the education system that directly affects SEND pupils. The unreal amount of pressure on educational staff members is all too evident, leading to an increasing loss of staff (Sterling, 2001, p.37) which has contributed to the staff retention crisis that is all too evident lately. The mistreatment of staff in the educational sector directly impacts students, especially those with SEND, who lose the consistency and access to support staff they may need due to the recent strikes conducted by the National Education Union (NEU). Both traditionalists and progressives agree that schools are built upon morals, although they disagree on the values that should come from these morals (Claxton, 2021, p.18). Yet, professionals on both sides support the strikes and the aims from them. When both sides unite on an issue, that suggests there is a significant issue that needs addressing as soon as possible. According to Claxton (2021, p.135), blended pedagogy produces better academic outcomes when compared to solely traditional or progressive approaches, so maybe we can consider this to be a start in the two sides beginning to work with each other instead of against, all in the interest of teachers and students, including those with SEND.

To be blunt, there is a crisis in education and its ability to support SEND children today, which will have future consequences. Claxton (2021, p.6) believes the system we have in place specifically puts children from marginalised or marginalised groups from being as successful as they could be if the system were different. The limited provision and help offered can grow independence within the SEND child and reduce the chance of overwhelm (Cowley (2018, p.98) but may also restrict us from trying something more beneficial overall. It is evident that no matter how hard we try to be inclusive, the current state of education makes this incredibly challenging and almost impossible. However, we can use this to learn from the struggles present today in education; we have a chance to improve future schooling and inclusion. As Sterling (2001, p.22) says, “you cannot learn without changing, or change without learning.” If we can change and make our learning environment appropriate for inclusion (Christodoulou, 2014, p.27), we can create positive change.

# data[].attributes.body
The curriculum over time to present comes from a very traditional standpoint due to surveys in the 1990s that concluded children lacked knowledge about the world around them (Claxton, 2021, p.1). But it has been questioned whether this approach is beneficial for SEND students. The traditional method we have today, combined with an overwhelming amount of content to teach, leaves little room to cater for our learners who may need a bit more time to understand a topic which risks those children being left behind. A specific example of this is for children with Global Delay, whom I have worked with during placements. They are statistically slower at learning than most, with a cognitive assessment average in the second centile (Spence, 2019, p.28). I was doing interventions to support a child with global delay during my first placement every day as they had been left behind when it came to learning. A method commonly used that I incorporated is referred to as backward chaining. Spence (2019, p.33) explains that this involves breaking down each task step, with the child initially doing the final step only and the adult doing the rest. Gradually the child begins to do more steps, always completing the final one to provide a sense of achievement. It has proven to be very effective. However, this form of support, which is very time-consuming, cannot be supported in a traditional education system that is often fast-paced.

The traditional view of teaching and education is one that strongly advocates and supports students focusing on being studious, polite and overall someone who works well as part of a group (Claxton, 2021, p.8). Due to the nature of a traditional education view, one could argue that it does not support children who have social, emotional or mental health struggles, as so much pressure is put on obtaining good exam results and being successful concerning grades. The news around the year six SATs has proven this lately, with children reportedly in tears from the tests this year. Even teachers found the papers confusing, which suggests a big issue in the current education system. There is an argument to be found in this, where there should be a debate around whether the current system is suitable. Most working in education can acknowledge that this model of education, set in the 19th century, is not applicable for modern-day living and its associated challenges (Sterling, 2001, p.27).

# data[].attributes.body
Progressive approaches to education were all too present in the 1970s and 80s (Claxton, 2021, p.1), coincidentally when children with special educational needs and disabilities started to be acknowledged positively in the education system due to the 1970 Handicapped Children Act and the Warnock Report 1978 (Bower, 2021, p.270). This was a monumental moment of progress within education, no longer segregating children who were different from their peers for fear of being different or a societal problem. We now believe that all children are entitled to an education (such as stated in a rights-based model of education), no matter their background or needs, avoiding exclusionary practice (Bower, 2021, p.3). If one were to support the exclusionary practice described, you actively deny that child the chance to flourish and work within society (Bower, 2021, p.274).

The purpose of a progressive approach revolves around the principles of kindness, respect and wellbeing (Claxton, 2021, p.8), fostering a more well-rounded view of the child over academics. Their preferred teaching methods are underpinned by scaffolding, where someone (a teacher, teaching assistant, or fellow pupil) supports the learner through the process, step by step, until the skill is acquired (Rosenshine, 1997, p.3). This can be done through various methods, most popular: modelling, thinking out loud, guided learning or prompting, according to Rosenshine (1997, p.3). This may be more beneficial for SEND children as more time is put into ensuring the child understands and achieves the learning outcome or objective. As stated by Christodoulou (2014,  p.39), minimal guidance risks the child experiencing higher rates of confusion and increases the chances of misconceptions arising, thus making a case for a more guided approach to learning that aligns with the progressive point of view. In contrast, direct instruction is relatively passive, like talking at the students instead of them (Gajewski and Forlin, 2017, p.68).

Whilst progressive approaches have not been too evident within the mainstream education system in recent years, these approaches are still being incorporated in our special schools. We often see lessons focused on life skills in special schools, preparing children to support themselves the best they can and do things independently or with minimal assistance. These lessons have been used for years and are standard in most special educational settings, so they must be beneficial. However, Claxton (2021, p.4) states that the implementation of life skills prevents access to cultural capital and essential knowledge. One definite positive, however, is the potential for developing independence that takes the pressure off of an overwhelmed health and social care system while also improving pupils' self-esteem. There are a lot of positives and negatives associated with life skills, and as such, the progressive education system. The best way to tackle this would be both special, alternative and mainstream settings working in unison to support inclusive practice better (Briggs, 2016, p.8).

# data[].attributes.body
According to Gajewski and Forlin (2017, p.63), those who work in a diverse class and hold social constructivist views (aligned with those that Vygotsky supported) often are more aware of inclusive practice. This theory by Vygotsky directly challenged Piaget and his theory of cognitive development. Once we become aware and master the values of social constructivism and the positive implications it has for inclusive teaching, we can begin to aspire towards a more inclusive society as a whole (Bower, 2021, p.275). Many of our values as teachers of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are underpinned through social constructivist thinking, where we build understanding as a group. Yet, everyone also produces their own individual knowledge at the same time. A great deal of learning I have seen through volunteer work is underpinned by these values, where students actively learn and share their findings as a group. However, your teaching method and the values underpinning it may not align with a social constructivist approach; this is where you need to reconsider what and who you are teaching (Claxton, 2021, p.29).

The core purpose of education is to promote the learning and acquisition of knowledge, health and overall improve the quality of life (Sterling, 2001, p.36). Yet, according to some, a curriculum that solely focuses on teaching selected knowledge may risk the indoctrination of pupils and the values associated with said knowledge (Christodoulou, 2014, p.109). This could present multiple barriers for students, especially those with SEND. As such, the National Curriculum Inclusion Statement (National Curriculum Statement, 2013, p.9) firmly holds the belief that there should as little to no barriers present for every student, hence the importance of carefully planning what and how to teach (linking to Claxton and his strong advocacy for social constructivism). SEND students often benefit from a staff member, such as a teacher or teaching assistant, who plans what they will do to the finest detail. Teaching assistants are incredibly beneficial, often increasing self-esteem and access to the curriculum, as part of a multi-disciplinary team (Briggs, 2016, pp.90-95). This liaison as a whole team, alongside the implementation of high expectations and social constructivism, underpins my practice and my values – ensuring every child can succeed on their own terms.