educational psych- SEND, inclusion and bullying Flashcards
code of practice [DfE,DoH 2015]
Children have special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for them.
4 broad areas of need regarding SEND
- communication and interaction
- cognition and learning
- social, emotional and mental health difficulties
- Sensory and/or physical needs → eg sensory overstimulation, hearing loss
previous response to SEND
- School Action (using school’s existing resources)
- School Action Plus (involving external services such as educational psychologists)
- Statutory assessment, possibly giving rise to a ‘statement’
graduated response to SEND [since 2015]
- Assess
- Plan
- Do
- Review
waves of intervention for SEND
- Universal provision → support available in a school for everyone eg having 5-10mins mindfulness at the start of every day
- Additional support (often in small groups)
- Intensive individual support → specific to one Childs need
Individual Education Plan for children allows educators to record needs, targets, interventions, and progress outside of standard progress indicators
role of education psychologist
- Can range from:
- Individual standardised assessment of an individual pupil’s learning difficulties to
- Consultation with staff within a school about support provided to children in care to
- Development of an authority-wide approach to anti-bullying
- Crucial bridge between:
- academic psychological research
- policy and practice within and across educational settings
what is inclusion
- a journey away from segregation
difference between integration and inclusion
- Integration involves the school in a process of assimilation: the individual needs to change
- Inclusion involves the school in a process of accommodation: the school needs to change
the education act [1996]
- Conditions for educating children with SEN in mainstream (1996):-
- Parental wishes
- The children receiving the special educational provision which their learning difficulties call for
- The provision of efficient education for the children with whom the children with SEN will be educated
- The efficient use of resources
the education act [2001]
-
must be educated in mainstream unless:-
- Incompatible with wishes of parent
- Incompatible with the provision of efficient education for other children
evidence for inclusion: comparative studies
- compares integrated with segregated provision
-
Consistently find no evidence that segregated placements promoted either academic or social progress compared to mainstream
- What is the value of segregated if not better?
-
Consistently find no evidence that segregated placements promoted either academic or social progress compared to mainstream
- BUT…
- Children not matched for things like behaviour problems or academic achievement
- Differences in curriculum not accounted for
- Widely differing definitions of ‘integration’
- Lindsay (2007): of 1% of studies that addressed efficacy issues, inclusion has marginally positive impact
- Ofsted (2006): mainstream schools with additionally resourced provision performed best
- Most important factor is quality of provision rather than type
Efficient education of mainstream pupils
Dyson et al. [2004]
- Used info from UK National Pupil Database
- No relationship between inclusion and attainment
- Attainment significantly associated with SES, ethnicity, gender and first language
Efficient education of mainstream pupils
Kalambouka et al. (2005
- Systematic review of SEND inclusion evaluation studies
- Overall, neutral impact of inclusion on academic and/or social outcomes for non-SEND pupils
- 23% actually had positive impact, especially on academic outcomes
- Positive impact linked to contexts where the support offered to pupils with SEND well managed (most schools demonstrated ‘minimum effort inclusion’)
integration vs. inclusion: socialisation factors
study
Stinson et al. (1996)
- 220 hearing-impaired 16- to 18-year-olds in high schools with varying degrees of integration into mainstream classes
- QUANTITY OF INTERACTION: participants generally reported more peer-participation with HI than H peers, but this was reversed among those with the most mainstreamed classes
- SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF INTERACTION: students who were in mainstream classes often were especially likely to report more emotional security with HI than H peers
- the oldest students who were frequently mainstreamed perceived themselves to be less socially competent in general than those who were mainstreamed infrequently
SEND-to-non-SEND peer relationships
Non-SEND pupils more tolerant of (Frederickson & Furnham, 2004) and generous to SEND included children (Frederickson & Simmonds, 2008)
BUT…
‘Although there is undeniable warmth between the children, most of the comments and non-verbal interactions reflect a helper–helpee relationship, not a reciprocal friendship’ - van der Klift and Kunc (2002, p22)
