Research School Network: Using research effectively; Inclusion of SEND in Mainstream An evidence based approach and use of research

As part of our ongoing journey of embedding an evidence led and research based approach to school improvement we have been considering the challenge of inclusion with increased numbers of SEND children. The EEF_Special_Educational_Needs_in_Mainstream_Schools_Guidance_Report.pdf provided us with a starting point to evaluate our current provision.

As the Headteacher of a two-form inner city primary school, I have focussed on implementing evidence-led decision making across the school. Whilst we aim to be critical of the research we use to guide decision making, research takes many forms. What we learn from a case study is very different to what we can learn from a meta-analysis. Using research evidence – A concise guide | Education Endowment Foundation was a useful document, although we got to this after our experience rather than before!

As the EEF Implementation Guidance states:

In the early days of our journey, I recall the school completing a SEND audit and were advised to consider an alternate programme of support for children with dyslexic tendencies. These children were struggling with spelling and writing, and research suggests at least 1 in 10 children are affected. The programme we already had in place was considered outdated, however our internal evaluation suggested children did make some progress with it.

The importance of Evaluation

We evaluated available alternative proven programmes that support children with dyslexic tendencies. One programme evidenced strong outcomes with the average improvement after 3 months on the programme, of 12 months+. Possibly too good to be true? We looked further and chose the programme as it met the criteria we had set and was logistically practical. The programme was computer based with beautiful graphics, which we thought would motivate the children, too. We planned our implementation strategy and monitoring points. We were confident given the due diligence we had completed.

We did not see the suggested gains in our setting and there was a lot of discussion around this. When we monitored what was actually happening, we found the following:

• The AI (artificial intelligence) within the programme was working well; ensuring children revisited learning where they had made errors, and it was slowly advancing learning with regular reviews of learned material.
• Where teachers had interacted and monitored the programme for each child on a weekly basis, progress was better.
• One element of the programme was inconsistent – software issue (not an element of our original programme).
• The children said they enjoyed it.

The importance of Monitoring

We trialled use of the programme in class, as well as outside of the classroom. A teacher was always responsible for ensuring the weekly check of children’s progress was completed. Class teachers struggled with this commitment, whilst a non-class based teacher did manage to do this regularly.

We reverted to our original intervention after 18 months for the following reasons:

• Impact was not evident as expected, and less favourable than our original intervention.
• Teachers found it challenging to be consistent with the weekly check

The third outcome we saw was the reaction from the children when our original intervention was put back into place. This required 5 – 10 minutes with an adult on an individualised basis with a book which is very bland with no engaging graphics. The children, however, were so much more excited and engaged!

Reflections:

When we read the research, maybe we did not consider the contextual information carefully enough. The new programme’s evidence was based on a one adult – one child scenario as many special educational needs programmes are. We had implemented it at a group level for 8 children to one adult, whilst others worked independently in class on tablets with distant supervision. There was no need for an adult to be there as the programme gave all the instruction needed, and children were able to complete daily tasks independently. My thoughts and reflections at this point, are around children’s attitudes & behaviours; is that quality time and building of relationships the most significant ​‘active ingredient’?

There are a number of prominent factors here to reflect upon. What is the impact of scaling up proven strategies? How can we be wiser about this? How adaptive are the AI algorithms in new software solutions, and how can we use this information more effectively? Lastly, how do we consider ​‘the human touch’ in our deliberations?

The updated A School’s Guide to Implementation | EEF is interesting in terms of what has been emphasised. We are after all, ​‘living’ organisations built on relationships, so it makes sense that a central focus should be on relationships, attitudes and behaviours.

With our schools becoming more and more inclusive of a wider range of children’s individual needs, I am being very cautious about how we consider new strategies for integration into our quality first inclusive teaching offer. Please let me know if you have any other thoughts!