1. An exploration into the trends surrounding the role of
the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO)
within mainstream schools (UK).
What has contributed to the trends, dilemmas and experiences in
the mainstream SENCO’s role, since its formalization in 1994?
The Department of Interdisciplinary Studies.
Manchester Metropolitan University Cheshire (MMUC).
BA (Hons) Childhood and Youth Studies.
2015
Miss Ashleigh McDine.
12088998
ABSTRACT
The role of the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) has undergone
substantial changes since it was formalised in the SEN Code of Practice in 1994 (DfEE,
1994). The radical shift has been mirrored by advances in policy and practice
concerning children with special educational needs (SEN), consequently putting
SENCO's in an increasingly difficult environment, with more complex demands than

2. ever before. The year 2014 marked a significant milestone for the SENCO role in
England as it celebrated its 20 year anniversary of the requirements for British schools
to have a named individual to lead the provision of SEN (DfE, 1994). A lot has occurred
within this 20 year period as global trends continue to embrace inclusive education
(Norwich, 2008). Therefore, this dissertation is set within the contemporary educational
scene with the trends and experiences of the SENCO role being the focus of this
secondary research study. The findings and conclusions give rise to the implications for
training, recruitment and retention, including possible avenues for the evaluation of
SENCO practice. The study also engages suggestions for future research within this
field. Overall, the findings indicate that the role cannot be generalised and that
SENCO's are operating in increasingly complex contexts within very different
management structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed in any way
to the completion of this dissertation;
• Firstly, the unit tutors for their understanding, patience and
guidance throughout this dissertation and my final year of study.
• I would like to thank my parents for their continued love, motivation
and invaluable financial support.
• I would like to thank my flat mates for their ideas and criticisms but
not lastly the laughs.
• Finally, I would like to thank my boyfriend for always being there.

3. DECLERATION
This dissertation is a record of work carried out entirely by myself and has not been
submitted for any other award. All sources of work have been acknowledged.
Name: Ashleigh McDine
Date: 21st April 2015.
Signature:
CONTENTS

4. Abbreviations Page 1
Introduction Page 2 – 3
Historical Role of the SENCO Page 4 – 9
Current Role – Professional Dilemmas-
Issues and Trends Page 10
• Inadequate Funding Page 11 –
13
• Management and Leadership Page 14 -
17
• Primary – SecondaryDifferences Page 1 8-
19
• Workloads – Time management Page 20 -
21
• Managing IEP’s and EHCP’s Page 22
- 23
• The views of others Page 24 -
25
Collaborative Working Page 26 – 27
Findings and Recommendations Page 28 – 29
References Page 30 – 37
ABREVIATIONS:

5. DfES - Department for Education and Skills
DfE - Department for Education
DCSF - Department for Children, Schools and Families
ECM - Every Child Matters
OFSTED - Office for Standards in Education
LA - Local Authority
LEA – Local Education Authority
IEP - Individual Education Plan
EHC – Educational Health Care Plan
SEN - Special Educational Needs
SENCO - Special Educational Needs Coordinator
SLT - Senior Leadership Team
TA - Teaching Assistant
TTA - Teacher Training Agency
OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and development
GEP – Group Education Plans
INTRODUCTION
The role of the 'Special Educational Needs Coordinator' (SENCO) is one that has
become a significant area in research due to the recent policy changes in legislation
concerning children with Special Educational Needs (SEN). Developments in policy
have included, the Every Child Matters Initiative (DfES, 2003), Removing Barriers to
Achievement (DfES, 2004) and most recently the Green Paper (DfE, 2010). Through
these modifications, the SENCO has been regarded as a ‘hub’ for support for children
with SEN, within a multi-agency framework, (Cheminais, 2005; 2010) being commonly
documented as ‘agents of change’ when regarding schools values (Cole, 2005; Hallett,
2010). Whilst reviewing the literature, there appears very little research on the lived

6. experiences, trends and dilemmas in the role of the SENCO profession, therefore there
is a need for focus in research to turn to the matter.
Most countries have similarly agreed that all children should have access to relevant
education, despite children with disabilities being often highlighted as group that is
overlooked and commonly associated with being out of school (UNESCO, 2008, P.15).
Therefore, it is crucial both locally and nationally to locate the most suitable way to
advocate, manage resources and interventions and lead provision for SEN learners
(Vislie, 2003). So far, this has been managed accordingly in a variety of ways around
the world, (Armstrong, 2010) for example in the U.S it is the responsibility of external
staff to organize assessments and provide provision where relevant (US Department for
Education, 2004). Other countries, including Hong Kong have adapted similar principles
to those of England and have created a specific role for a skilled personnel, to oversee
the provision for all learners with additional needs (Poon- McBrayer, 2012).
The British Government, both within the revised Special Educational Needs Code of
Practice (DfES, 2001) and within its National Standards, (TTA, 1998) has sought to
define the role of the SENCO. However, commentators like Garner, (2001) Davies and
Lee (2001) have speculated that such definitions are limited and functionalist in nature
as although the SENCO title is of somewhat a recent origin; the role in itself is the
outcome of a lengthy process of evolution concerning the specific work of SEN
educators over the last three decades. There is substantial work discussing the
requirement to conceptualize the role of the SENCO to allow a paradigm shift, towards
better agents of change within the context of inclusion (Liasidou, 2013). This thorough
process has extended both the scope and possibilities of the SENCO role to ensure
they influence school organization and practices in the interest of all pupils with SEN
Rosen- Webb (2011, p.159) reflecting on the SENCO role, argues the role is unclear,
both in policy contexts and research literature. In cases that educational settings vary,
including its’ organisation and planning structures, it is often difficult to place SENCO's
within a 'primary school situation' and is predominantly where legislative guidance has
become confabulated leading to considerable variations within the role. This is
reiterated by Pearson and Ralph (2007, p.38) who argue that despite substantial
guidance from Government, there has been a high volume of local interpretation.
Nevertheless, the emerging diversity of SENCO work patterns warrants research into
the educational effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of various approaches to SEN.
Therefore, this dissertation paper is constructed within the past, present and future of
SEN initiatives in England, by reflecting on both historical contexts and individual
opinions, as the guidance for inclusive education for SEN children in mainstream
schools undergoes a radical overhaul.

7. HISTORICAL ROLE OF THE SENCO.
Since 1994, all schools in both England and Wales have been required to have a
designated member of staff, responsible for all Special Educational Needs (SEN)
children, under the role of the ‘Special Educational Needs Coordinator’ (SENCO). Many
schools did however have SENCO’s before that date, with the role developing since the
mid 1980’s where the training of all SENCO’s had begun in most Local Education
Authorities (LEAs) (Crowne, 2003)
The SENCO role has had almost 30 years to develop; the early 1990’s saw published
papers discussing the role, but the official view was not made until the publication of
‘The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational
Needs’ (DFE 1994a), which set out the guidance and day-to-day tasks expected from
the role of the SENCO. It stated they would manage day-to-day operations of the
schools SEN policy; liaise with, and advise their fellow colleagues; whilst coordinating
the provision for children with SEN. Further expectations were to maintain the school’s
SEN register, monitor the records of all pupils with SEN whilst ensuring to communicate
effectively and gain partnerships with parents. Finally, they were expected to run the in-
service training of all its staff and liaise with outer agencies including educational
psychology services and other support agencies, medical and social services and finally
voluntary bodies (DFE 1994a: 2.14). The introduction of the National Curriculum for all
pupils and the emphasis on the advocacy to demonstrate more inclusive systems of
education in the UK subsequently increased the pressure for schools to establish they
could respond to such diversity. Despite some SENCO’s exceeded the challenge (Clark
et al., 1995), others found it exceedingly problematic.
Further changes took place in the late 1990’s when the Office for Standards in
Education (OFSTED) and other government documents produced reports, in which
SENCO’s were indicated to take significant authority and lead in developing inclusive
practices. Publications including, ‘The SENCO Guide’ (DfEE 1997a) and the ‘National
Standards for Special Educational Needs Coordinators’ (TTA – Teacher Training
Agency 1998) subsequently followed; all identifying the core purposes, competencies
and skills required in providing professional guidance regarding SEN. With the ultimate
aim of establishing high quality teaching.

8. The ever-changing expectations of the SENCO within mainstream schools has results
in several evaluative studies throughout the period 1995- 2000. The research
succeeded in highlighting the tensions inherent in meeting the guidelines set out in the
requirements of the Code of Practice and similar documents. Crowther et al (1997)
concluded that the work of the SENCO could not be generalized as there is not one
specific role alone, instead, in reality they undertake several roles depending on the
circumstances in which they operate. Garner (2001), for example later expressed the
opinion that fulfilling the role in primary settings is substantially more difficult, perhaps
due to the emphasis placed on early intervention and assessments.
In 2001, a revised Code of Practice (CoP) specified some extended roles for the
SENCO, which would include managing all learning support assistants (LSA's) within
schools. In addition to this revised CoP, maintaining the schools SEN register became
no longer a statutory requirement of their role (DFES 2001 5.32-6.35) and for the first
time, it elucidated the duties of a SENCO professional when practicing in early year
settings (EYS). Despite still encompassing similar roles and responsibilities to those in
primary and secondary school settings, extended responsibilities in EYS would include;
ensuring effective relationships with parents and other professionals in respect of
children with SEN; to advise and support other practitioners within the setting; to ensure
that individual education plans (IEP’s) are in place for all children with SEN, whilst
guaranteeing that all information collected about individual children, is relevant,
purposefully collected, recorded and updated correctly (DFES, 2001. 4.15).
SENCO’s are regarded as key individuals in the process of a child’s development and
the larger scope of SEN, so are increasingly expected to maneuver their schools
positions of receptiveness, including challenges that the future of SEN brings
(Shuttleworth, 2000). It can be said that time and its developments so far have already
brought substantial alterations to special education and what the future holds is said to
only bring more challenges. Rosen-Webb (2011, P.160) noted that the revised Code of
Practice (2001) successfully managed to both clarify and 'muddy' the role of the SENCO
profession. It is argued that the changes made in the 2001 CoP were confabulated and
un-clear, giving some school's the opportunity to personalise the role accordingly to
their setting, whilst also creating a 'pick and mix' approach for other settings- giving
practitioners very little scope when attempting to scaffold efforts for the voices of SEN to
be heard within a school. Collective themes have become identifiable in SENCO role
descriptions, as well as the surrounding literature that relates to key responsibilities,
these are; managing resources; directing staff; advocating for pupils with SEN, as well
as aiming towards more significant issues regarding 'inclusive practice', which in itself
forms part of a more theoretical debate ;
The notion of 'inclusive practice' was promoted by the ‘Salacama Agreement’ in 1994,
namely to enable schools to serve for all children and particularly those with SEN
(UNESCO, 1994b p.3). The ‘Dakar Agreement’ extended this arrangement and set out
various challenges to improve inclusive education worldwide by 2015, with ‘total

9. inclusion’ of all children with SEN throughout mainstream schools (UNESCO, 2000 p.7).
Lunch and Norwich (1999) support the notion that inclusion is significantly important
when valuing education and argue that it is crucial to developing high quality teaching
that effectively addresses all individual needs. Essentially, It has become a value set
forth on international policy arenas (UNESCO, 1994) and determinations for school
developments (Booth and Ainscow 2002; Thomas and Loxely 2001). It is contrasted
with integration as encouraging schools to ‘adapt’ to the needs of individual pupils,
rather than the expectation that pupils need to ‘fit in’. Overall, inclusion has been seen
to reinforce schools to accommodate for a wide range of pupils within communities and
is not solely limited to children with disabilities, but instead to responding positively to
diversity and celebrating each difference among pupils.
It was the Warnock Committee Report (1978) and subsequently the Education Act
(1981) that first supported the notion of integration for children that previously would
have attended alternative provisions, but were most commonly based on medical
diagnosis’ of their defects rather than their educational abilities or individual needs. It is
important to agree that inclusive education is viewed by society in various differing
perspectives (Slee, 1998). Some primary ideological frameworks have been established
over time with regards to how and where children with SEN should be educated
(Skidmore, 1996). These ideological frameworks have enabled implementation of
educational practice and provision in a variety of different forms. The 'psycho-medical
model' is one that locates children’s disabilities and individual needs unproblematically
within their individual genetics (Thomas and Loxley, 2007:3), by understanding them to
arise from psychological and neurological constraints displayed (Skidmore, 1996). Also
known as the 'individual tragedy', 'deficit' or 'medical model', it has become a traditional
ideology in which typically western society has conceptualised SEN through the
consciousness of society, media, language, beliefs, policy, practice and research. The
framework employs its practices form the medical profession in order to judge children’s
limitations against their ‘developmental and functional norms’, it believes in diagnosing
and trying to ‘cure’ a condition or syndrome (Johnstone, 2011). This significant
employment of such medical ideas has influenced developments in the identification
and placement of SEN children within the UK’s schooling system, and subsequently the
professionals that provide for them (Corbett and Norwich, 2005). In spite of this, for
many, the application of the medical model has been considered inaccurate as it leads
professionals to focus entirely on what a child can and cannot do as a result of their
condition, comparatively of what he or she can potentially learn (Cobett and Norwich,
2005). It is from this perspective that such individuals have been prevented from
accessing all aspects of their life, limiting them to lesser-valued social roles within
society (Priestley, 2003: 12)
Copious individuals have argued that disability has become a social construction of
deprivation caused by contemporary social organisations that have ignored accounts of
those individuals with such impairments and therefore excluded them from mainstream
activities (Thomas, 2002 UPIAS). Ultimately, this has supported the notion of society

10. being 'designed' by and for the non-disabled majority, as realistically, their policies and
attitudes have not reflected the diverse needs of the UK population (Ferguson, 2005).
During the 1970’s, a re-examination of disability was conducted due to the actions of
disabled peoples organisations. From this, the ‘Social Model’- a new theoretical
framework for conceptualising disability was developed, no longer systematically
associating an impairment with an individual (Oliver, 1983). The fundamental objective
of the Social Model was to deconstruct the idea that disability was caused by bodily
impairment, to reconstruct the framework and construct the philosophy that an
environment can also disable an individual, as it restricts their freedom, their ability to
communicate and their ability to function effectively, without such impairments (Brainhe,
2007). This models initial principle was to acknowledge that society often causes
disability by placing barriers in the way of individual’s accessibility (Hughes and
Patterson, 1997). Similarly Mitler, (2000) writing about social exclusion and the
influence of social disadvantages, argues that society and its institutions are
‘oppressive, discriminatory and disabling’ (p. 12)
Employing the medical model with instances of learning, behaviour and SEN in school
settings subsequently allows its institutions to be ‘let off’, because the problem resides
within the pupil and not the learning context (school) (Lewis, 1991). With this in mind,
several studies have documented the issues in producing more inclusive practices
(Cole, 2005 and Szwed 2007a and 2007b), with several researchers pointing out the
deficit perspective of SEN, in which school issues are understood as individual
shortcomings (Ainscow 1998 and Lindqvist 2007). Forline and Rose (2010) have
proposed that effective school inclusion is purely reliant on the capability to change
attitudes and perceptions, develop more professional skills and ensure positive
collaboration within on-going partnerships. Forbes (2009) similarly explored professional
groups thinking, knowledge and best practices, presenting several cross references in
literature that indicated the necessity for old professional identities to be undone and for
new ones to be generated as co-working practitioners (Lave, 1991; Norwich, 1993).
Lave and Norwich’s notion of un-doing old and bad practices, was supported by, the
Every Child Matters (ECM) initiative (DfES, 2003), which led schools to further explore
the role of the SENCO. Central to the argument of the evolving SENCO position, was
the expectation that they undertake management and leadership roles relating to SEN
and inclusion within their setting (Layton, 2005 and Gerschel, 2005). The initiative was
argued to bring vast changes, with new roles for the SENCO, by combining new
responsibilities with the initiative’s five primary objectives (DfE, 2004). It recognised the
need to bring specialist services together, working in multi-disciplinary teams to focus
the individual needs of children. This notion of para-professional and multi-disciplinary
working echoes the medical model, in the sense of taking responsibility away from the
class or subject leader and leaving it solely dependent on others (Lindqvist).
Hallett and Hallett (2010) expressed how legislation from previous governments has
aided in putting the SENCO at the center of educational inclusion and school

11. development processes (p.33). However, it is paramount to recognize that the Code's of
Practice have not been statutory legal documents until only just recently, although it
must be said, most schools and LEA’s have treated it as such. The intended flexibility of
the CoP over the years has sent a message to schools that is either not received or
instead treated skeptically, as it circulates remarks regarding its legal status (Ainscow,
1998). Regardless of most schools interpreting it as statutory, there is evidence that
such guidance is being interpreted narrowly and with little flexibility (Robertson, 2012). It
is argued that interpretation of the CoP now as a mandatory legal requirement will
develop more pluralist approaches to meeting the needs of SEN and create an intended
assumption that a continuum of need must allow, for a continuum of successful
provision (Booth, 1994). Overall, it can be said that such duties have placed and
continue to place considerable emphasis on the important and strategic role of the
SENCO in promoting SEN across settings; by ensuring quality provision; appropriate
resourcing and effective staff communication (Lewis et al., 2007)
CURRENT ROLE – PROFESSIONAL DILEMMAS –
ISSUES – TRENDS.
Dilemmas around roles occur when there is mismatch or conflict between the level of
expertise and the type of tasks involved. In role dilemmas, a specialist may be asked to
take on a more generic role, which does not use their specific expertise, or perhaps a
professional feels their expertise is devalued when a less-specialised individual takes
on supplementary, specialist roles (Pearson, 2008). Particularly in inter-professional
work, there has become a requirement for both specialised expertise, and more generic
work which some individuals may not be keen to carry out, thereupon making
collaboration problematic in a team of specialists. However, it is important to consider
that generic roles are useful in helping practitioners to overcome professional
boundaries, and experiences of SEN (Abbot et al., 2005 and Leadbetter, 2009).
Therefore, by sharing work practices of the SENCO it can aid in the avoidance of
compartmentalised views of children, similar to those in schools (Leadbetter, 2008).
SENCO issues concerning inadequate funding, role definitions, workloads and the lack
of involvement in key leadership aspects, including the low status of SEN in some
schools continues to prevent the developments of more equitable and innovative

12. practices (MacBeath and Dempster, 2009). Schools and teachers are regulated by a
range of technologies in which teacher and whole-school effectiveness is regularly
evaluated on the basis of quantifiable performance outputs, inevitably forcing schools to
do whatever is necessary to maximise their outputs (Ball, 2003). So giving the nature of
competing and contradicting policies regarding special education, it places SENCO’s in
a delicate and difficult position as they strive to maintain positions within performance
league tables (Cole, 2005).
INADEQUATE FUNDING:
Concerns regarding budgetary implications regarding the work of the SENCO first
emerged in 1996 (AEP, House of Commons), emphasising the period of time spent, in
which SENCO’s have felt incapable to do their jobs efficiently. A study conducted by the
National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations (NCPTA) reported that more
than half of the school’s in the survey found substantial complications in meeting the
requirements of the CoP within their allocated budgets and with only 6% of the schools
surveyed feeling ‘comfortable’ matching the Codes requirements (NCPTA, 1996) . Other
studies, that although may not address budget allocation explicitly, have noted the
open-ended responses given, regarding the impacts and distress concerning
government ‘cuts’ over the years (Nilhom, 2010)
Without a great deal of funding, it proves difficult to close the gap between policy and
practice and turning policy into practice (Cheminiais, 2005;2010). Additional issues
regarding inadequate funding emerged from an OECD report in 2003 concluding that
nearly all SENCO's in England and Wales believed there was insufficient funding
available for SEN within their setting. One paper suggested that the majority of schools
studied were actively making the most of their funding for its pupils with SEN (84%)
(Cheminanis, 2005). In contrast, almost 90% unanimously agree that this is insufficient
(WHO, 2011)
With so many new initiatives form the central government, and the expectations they
have generated with little given support, has understandably provided the role of the
SENCO with unrealistic and unattainable responsibilities for one individual alone
(Kearns, 2005). External agencies providing support are often argued as inaccessible
and irrelevant as once accessed they are commonly focused on providing guidance and
advice with administrative aspects of SEN such as observations and meetings and less
on the direct work with children. In contrast, inappropriate resources can be regarded as
a failure of public resources to equip schools and professionals adequately (Gunter,
2006). However, it is important to acknowledge the outcomes of neo-liberal and
economic policies and how recommended practice is limited within its available

13. resources provided for public services; so a need to look beyond economic explanations
should be a suggestion put underway (Dyson, 2010)
In practice, the allocation of resources, including staff, is decided on an individual school
basis and consequently differences in practice appear. A lack of funding is said to be so
severe that a 2004 study by the National Union for Teacher’s (NUT) reported the extent
that it undermined their role and impacted their provision for students and inclusionary
practices (Hodskin, 2010). Financial management has become an increasing obligation
of the SENCO, making them liable for coordinating provision including, costing and
buying external services, coordinating the most recent interventions and monitoring
whole-school effectiveness in inclusive education. The role has become progressively
more data-driven as it tracks progress of interventions and calculates overall
effectiveness (OFSTED). However, research continues to present intense
dissatisfaction from the profession, due to such reductions and increased pressure to
meet ongoing requirements, which is argued to make SENCO’s fully accountable for all
progress, without the ability to actually do so (Pearson and Mitchell, 2015).
Of the respondents in a 2013 study (Pearson, Mitchell and Rapti), 15% of SENCO’s
predicted a reduction in available resources to support those students with SEN; either
because there was inadequate funding or less obtainable staff. It could be contended,
that a significant increase in SEN pupils presenting more severe and complex needs
every year, can accumulate pressures for the SENCO as they strive to provide for all
individual needs, with the same staffing and the same funding. This is reiterated by
Lorenz (2000), who outlines the implications for the developing SENCO role, by
asserting that the role is undoubtedly not, what it was, as more recently mainstream
schools have dealt with a severe increase in a diverse range of children, yet are
committed to adapting their organisations and teaching methods to reflect the wider
inclusive philosophy. A reduction in support from LA’s is argued to be a common
denominator in alike situations as they demand schools to pay for services that they
previously would have received for free (Dunne, 2009). 33% of those studied predicted
an intensification of their role as they adopted added responsibilities outlined in the
Green Paper. Their views expressed how they expect an increase in bureaucracy and
‘more paper work - with less impact’. In contrast, only two respondents expressed the
view that the Green paper will allow an overall reduction in bureaucracy (Pearson,
Mitchell and Rapti 2013)
A recent renaissance in SEN provision and funding has led to the development of
personal budgets for families, to enable purchasing of services, including speech and
language, therapy sessions etc. Although it demonstrates effective uses of direct
payments in educational and adult services, it has excessive benefits and costs
involved, for example; training and employing professionals to support families within
budgets may not out-weigh the shortcomings. A concern is that family funding allocation
leads to decontextualised interventions that are in-itself counterproductive, as some
support is clearly more beneficial for a child when provided in a school setting alongside

14. their curricular materials (Lawson, Parker, Skies, 2006). There is an apparent danger
that the advances of direct payments and personal budgets are creating professional
silos rather than positively developing professional and collaborative practice. In the
context of service rationing for SEN and education, it is argued that SENCO’s will need
to use their services more than ever, in a way to better support children with SEN and
be more skilled in their practices (Robertson, 2012).
Financial management has become an increasing obligation of the SENCO, making
them liable for coordinating provision including, costing and buying external services,
coordinating the most recent interventions and monitoring whole-school effectiveness in
inclusive education. The role has become progressively more data-driven as it tracks
progress of interventions and calculates overall effectiveness (OFSTED).
MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP CONFLICT – ROLE AND IDENTITY
DILEMMA:
The conflict between deep, specialist and wider knowledge, which spans to include
professional boundaries, can result in ‘identity dilemma’. The resulting change in a
professions status, as well as blurring role boundaries can also be threatening to
professional identity (Robinson, 2007; Leadbetter, 2006 and Robinson et al., 2005),
which is ones self-concepts based on their beliefs, experiences and attributes (Schein,
1978). Difficulties in learning often arise from unsuitable environments, inappropriate
groupings of pupils, inflexible teaching styles and inaccessible curriculum materials
(DfES 2004a 2.1). It is argued these barriers are a result of organisational and
managerial issues that require quality management and leadership (Mackenzie, 2007).
Varying perceptions of the SENCO have led to a fluid definition of the position
theoretically (Szwed, 2007b), which in turn has led to a variation in practices as the
identification and duties of SEN and those who oversee it continues to change over time
(Cole, 2005). The revised Code of Practice, in 2001, recommended that SENCO’s

15. should be members of the school’s senior management team to ensure a strategic role
is carried out (DfES, 2001). Robertson and Crowne (2005) suggest that the role of the
SENCO continues to develop and therefore puts unrelenting emphasis on the
importance of its managerial and leadership aspects. Despite this, supportive
frameworks at national policy level has failed to develop efficient coherence that would
allow SENCO’s to deliver more strategic direction and leadership that is needed (Vislie,
2003).
Alongside policies, is the prevailing emphasis on the obligation to empower SENCO's to
coordinate and lead provision (TDA, 2009). Leading provision demonstrates aspects of
social justice discourses that focus on generating 'a collaborative and democratic
learning community' with aims to decrease the effects of social inequities with certain
groups of students (Bass and Grestl-Perpin, 2011). It is debated by Theoharis, (2007)
that the concept of leadership for social justice has only been applied slightly to special
education and inclusive practices, whilst Capper and Sebastian (2006) have expressed
how research on leadership social justice, has mainly focused upon race and ethnicity
aspects, with disability and SEN receiving little or no attention and therefore making the
role exceedingly difficult as they strive to change the face of attitudes and
implementations within their school. The role of leadership however, should be
recognised as vital in cultivating educational reforms (Ainscow 2004; Rehil 2000;
Theoharis and Causton-Theoharris 2008).
Many organizations have pursued to differentiate between ‘positional leadership’
(members of school’s senior management team), ‘managerial leadership’ and ‘relational
leadership’ SENCO roles (MacBeath and Dempster, 2009). However, the literature
reveals a contradictory trajectory where there is only limited leadership authority
assigned to SENCO’s (Svensson, 2013).Positional leadership in the context of an
organizational structure, such as a school, can be interpreted as a ‘higher set of
abilities’ (Dimmock, 2002, p.33). Managerial leadership represents responsibilities that
are deemed a ‘lower set of abilities’, mostly concerned with the maintenance of
performance and provision through coordination and control (Dimmock, 2002). Lastly,
relational leadership is the context of connecting with their own and others’ learning and
not so much about controlling others (Gunter, 2006, p. 263). It is argued, that CoP’s
align themselves within managerial roles and responsibilities by focusing on
‘coordinating, supervising and overseeing’ provision. Despite this, it is important to
consider that such Codes have stated a conditional ‘may’ when indicating government
guidance. This has served to be overly prescriptive and not rich in detail (Tissot, 2013,
p. 34), subsequently showing variations in the interpretation of Codes and confusion in
the allocation of hierarchical positions (Pearson and Ralph, 2007, p.38).
The perceived importance of such managerial and leadership status has been a matter
or recurrent debate (e.g Morewood, 2008; Oldham and Radford, 2011; Tissot; 2013)
indicating a definite trend towards the formalization of SENCO leadership
responsibilities (Rosen-Webb, 2011). Trends towards the formalization of SENCO

16. responsibilities included the ratification of new regulations in 2008 concerning the
achievements of awards for all new and employed SENCO’s. Changes included
appointing a National Award for SEN Coordination (NASENCO), highlighting the
significance of the role in upholding inclusive practices in the UK. The agencies aim,
which was available in 2009 (TDA) encompasses intangible vagueness; it states that
SENCO’s are accountable for influencing culture, policies, practices and promoting
whole inclusion; which in itself proposes both positional and relational leadership duties.
It has been argued, as another large framework that gives little direction on how to
implement such duties in school, as it deploys somewhat of a traditional view to SEN
and education (Florain, 2011). Of the few respondents in Crowther, Dyson and
Millwards (2010) study, the majority of SENCO’s had completed courses specializing in
specific forms of SEN, such as autism, language, dyslexia. With this said, it is important
to acknowledge that there has been a dominant theme through literature that such
emphasis undermines the potential to develop more generic management and
leadership skills to enable more strategic operations envisaged by policy makers. In
contrast, the SENCO role is defined as an ‘advisor or specialist’ who should advise
more senior colleagues. Such responsibilities may be perceived as a ‘matter of
principle’ (MacBeath and Dempster, 2009) or pragmatism in order to ease the burden of
over worked head-teachers and senior managers (Hartley, 2010).
Support for the SENCO, head teacher and pupils with SEN in many primary schools is
often enhanced through the employment of TA’s, employed by LEA’s. It is said, that
some are managed effectively and provide significant support for pupils with statements
of SEN. However, others have provided less sustained support for those pupils at lower
stages of the CoP and research has shown little effect on the SENCO’s work burden
(Blatchford et al,. 2012). Fluctuations in educational roles throughout settings is
increasing the dilemmas and differences in professions as each are managed differently
with diverse expectations. To tackle this, specific responsibilities of the SENCO in
managing teaching assistants (TA's) was outlined in the revised CoP (DfES, 2001) and
included; managing SEN support staff; managing the day-to-day organization of
resources for SEN, including the deployment of TA's; liaising with and advise fellow
TA's on meeting the individuals needs of pupils with SEN; and finally to take
responsibility for the in-service training and inductions of its staff. Gerschel (2005)
found that this role was significantly improved when the SENCO was within the senior
management team and had inputs into strategic decisions throughout the school (It has
But it has often been unclear on who is managing, working with or supporting teaching
assistants in schools (Gross, 2011). However, collaborative training sessions between
SENCO’s and TA’s have aided in joint working, but taken valuable time from schedules.
It is said that training opportunities for TA’s will need to adhere to the crucial research
surrounding the fields, which points to the need of making more careful uses of teaching
assistants in schools (Blatchford et al., 2012). Little or no time has been allocated to
SENCO’s to work directly with TA’s to plan and review the progress of its SEN pupils
meaning effective communication between the two is even more vital as often parents
expectations of teaching assistants can exceed what their role actually is (Cole, 2005).

17. PRIMARY- SECONDARY DIFFERENCES:
It is apparent that a SENCO's impact is related to a complex system of school
hierarchical structures (Layton, 2005)
Following the publication of the 1994 Code of Practice, the National Union of Teachers
(NUT) commissioned Warwick University to undertake a national survey that would be
sent to all schools in England and Wales (Lewis et al. 1996). Over 2000 replies were
received from both primary and secondary school settings; factual-information was
gathered about the school, its pupils, the role of the SENCO, staffing and salaries. The
study showed that were significant differences between primary and secondary schools
in the way in which SENCO responsibilities were allocated (Lewis et al., 1996). In
primary schools, it was relatively common that the role of the SENCO was also in
addition to other roles they carried out as a class teacher (Lewis et al., 1996). This is
still evident nowadays, in which subject-leaders, classroom teachers, head-teachers or
child protection officers of a smaller setting or primary setting, are commonly appointed
to the SENCO position (Cole, 2005). Various professionals carrying out the role is
argued to provide a lack of understanding and circulate miss-leading messages among
staff and the wider community about the importance and demanding requirements
concerning the post of the SENCO (Oldham and Radford, 2011). 1in 5 primary school
SENCO’s in Lewis’s (1996) study were noted to be half-time members of staff, whilst
there was also a clear association between the size of a school, the position of the
SENCO and the numbers identified as children with SEN (Lewis et al. 1996). The ‘non-
resident’ or halftime SENCO raises issues and circulates debate about the effectiveness
of whole-school approaches to meeting SEN and resourcing professional development

18. (Querishi, 2014). Surveys analyzed from the secondary school settings in Lewis’s
(1996) study revealed that allocated SENCO’s were commonly specialists in the fields
of SEN, with a significant number holding other responsibilities outside of the school. It
was noted that in secondary schools, much fewer SENCO’s than primary schools were
head teachers, deputy-heads or part-time employees (Lewis et al., 1996), which again
is mirrored in today’s society. It is evident that SENCO’s from senior leadership teams
(SLT) reported different experiences of impact when teaching their colleagues as well
as the sustained support received form within the school to undertake their role (Layton,
2005; Szwed; 2007b)
A benefit of having the head-teacher as a SENCO is that the concerns regarding SEN
are likely to filter into whole-school policy and approaches and provide means for
managing change (Crowther, 2010). In contrast, a disadvantage of the head teacher /
SENCO role is the concern from a multi-faced character as they deal with competing
demands, time, interest and motivation. There is a danger that other priorities will take
center stage dismaying the strategic role. Significantly, the revised Code states that only
in exceptional circumstances should head teachers also take on the role of the SENCO
(Crowther, Dyson and Millward, 2010) and also recommended for SENCO’s to be a
member of the senior management team (DfE, 2014).
WORKLOADS- TIME MANAGEMENT:
SENCO’s require time for; planning and coordination away from the classroom; to
maintain appropriate individual and whole-school records of children with statements; to
observe pupils in class without a teaching commitment; to manage, support and train
TA’s; finally, to liaise with colleagues, early education settings, feeder primary and
secondary schools and employment advisors (DfES 2001b: 5.33). There has been a

19. dominant theme in research relating to the SENCO over the past decade in relation to
aspects of leadership and managerial responsibilities within their role and in turn the
workload it is creating (Cole, 2005; Layton, 2005).
Key findings from various studies have continued to uncover the frustration over set
time allocation’s for a SENCO to carry out such expected duties efficiently. A survey by
Szwed (2004) clearly demonstrated the issue of available time for SENCO’s to manage
their workloads effectively. Over 90% of the SENCO’s studied reported how the role
created compelling challenges for the management of their time. Contrary to this, an
NUT survey (2006) on the impact of Code’s upon the SENCO role, uncovered a
widespread variation in the amounts of weekly non-contact time assigned to their job.
On average the SENCO received one-five hours of non-contact time per week (NUT,
2006). A key aspect of the research in Szwed’s (2004) findings, commonly associated
with other studies undertaken, was the non-existent correlation between the number of
children identified as having SEN and the specific or available time allocated to work
with them. Although it is problematic to assume what set time is appropriate for all
SENCO’s, it is evident that some work within limited opportunities- in terms of the time
they have allocated to their role, results in work overload and vulnerability as they
sacrifice duties for other aspects (Robertson and Tod, 2012).
There are significant similarities in studies concerning the workload and time
management of SENCO’s regardless of the time spent rectifying legislation (Allan,
2008). Three quarters (74%) of SENCO’s in a 2010-2012 study listed ‘paperwork and
documentation’ as the aspect of their role in which they spend the most time, whilst
other respondents described to the extent that they used their free time to relieve their
workloads (Tissott, 2012). When reviewing studies and planning for time management it
is important to scrutinize such conclusions with the size of a school and the number of
pupils with SEN statements that attend (Dunne, 2009). It is also crucial to take into
account busier times of SENCO’s working year so to arrange for more flexible time
management; i.e. in September, mid-year (February) and the end of term (June/July), in
cases that SENCO’s are expected to prepare for pupils transitions into further
education. Legislative guidance and initiatives however, fails to account for busier times
or take into consideration further aspects of the role (Teather, 2011)
Such continuous emphasis on the role of the SENCO, is argued to be both part of the
‘solution and problem’. It not uncommon for SENCO’s to experience stress and added
pressure daily because of such burdens, affecting their workload further and their
professional identity (Barnes, 2008). However, despite fragmenting professionals
identities and their concepts, it succeeds in challenging educators, academics and the
wider educational body about the challenge that administrative burdens and resources
is brining (Armstrong, 2010). It does also gives staff room to abdicate their
responsibilities and place blame solely on the SENCO for any arising faults or issues
(Lewis, 2007). This has led to a sharp divide between the perceived expectations of the
SENCO role and the resources available to fulfil such expectations resulting in

20. increasing dissatisfaction from teachers, education leaders, parents and school
governors (Marks, 2000).
MANAGING INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANS (IEP’s) AND
EDUCATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLANS:
Much of the previous research regarding the role of the SENCO has focused primarily
on the unrealistic workload requirements (Farrell, 1988) and commonly the bureaucratic
nature of the 'Individual Educational Plan' (IEP) process. The Code of Practice (DfES,
2001) introduced the notion of 'Group Education Plans' (GEP’s) for pupils that had
similar needs to one another. Frankl (2005) described how this strategy can reduce the
number of pupils with IEP’s and thereby reduce the workload of SENCO’s. A study
found that with fewer IEP’s to implement, more time was made available to review
GEP’s with other staff, including class-teachers, learning support teachers and learning
assistants (Sammons and Hopkins et al, 2009). It allowed a significant decrease in the
amount of paperwork required for writing and maintaining pupils IEPS, consequently
allowing the SENCO to spend valuable time consulting with other staff and
implementing curriculum interventions (Frankl, 2005). With the addition of GEP’s, it
allowed class-teachers to take more responsibility for pupils’ SEN and more interest in
specific targets. The introduction of GEP’s in a more widespread manner needs
consistent support from senior managers to ensure it is introduced effectively (Cole,
2005). English or mathematic targets can be incorporated in GEP targets allowing SEN
planning to involve target-setting and whole-class planning encompassing a whole-
school approach and sharing more responsibility between the SENCO and class-
teacher relieving burdens. Conversely, if the use of GEP’s was more widely adopted
then further research would be needed so to monitor pupil’s development in their
personal targets and how it may or may not further affect the role of the SENCO
(McIntyre, 2004).
The replacement of Statements of SEN with Education Health Care Plan (EHCP) was
viewed as fetching vast changes in the early invention and assessments of SEN,
making practice more clear and relevant (Warnock 2005). Contradicting literature

21. however has documented the view that EHCP’s will require knowledge and skills
beyond the SENCO’s capacity (Pearson and Mitchell, 2015).
EHCP’s constitutes a reformed and more independent assessment process for children
with additional and complex needs, which is based on a single multi-agency approach,
with the same statutory guidance as previous Code’s, but extending to cover ages 0-25
years (Pearson; Mitchell and Rapti, 2015). EHC’s have been argued to point towards
the minority of children identified as having SEN; 224,210, those of who have
statements (2.8%) rather than 17.8% (1,449,685) of pupils with SEN who do not have a
statements (DfE, 2011b). If improved assessment and multi-agency plans are not
considered then it may be that individual needs are unmet on a macro-scale placing
higher demands on the SENCO and their intervention and assessment skills
(Robertson, 2012). Despite abolishing IEP’s and some of the benefits this has brought,
some SENCO professionals did use them effectively and will want reassurance that
their schools have not been wasting time in developing plans that are outcome focused
and pupil-parent friendly (Robertson and Todd, 2012). Contrary to EHCP’s and the
Green Paper that addressed health professionals to undertake the early identification of
children’s SEN needs. Although this may reduce SENCO workload and the initial
process of ECHP’s planning and development, many believe the identification of SEN
continues throughout a pupils schooling and therefore requiring the SENCO to become
involved in individual assessments as the named personnel to provide provision whilst
collaborating with other professionals(Pearson and Mitchell, 2012)
THE VIEWS OF OTHERS CONCEIRNG THE SENCO:
There is evidence that shows SENCO’s have a positive impact on teachers confidence
and abilities, whilst primary data has indicated that this impact varies from setting to
setting as the SENCO- teacher dynamic is determined by a number of influential factors
(Robertson, 2012). In Layton’s (2005) study, parents and LEA's expectations were the
second most common determinations of how a SENCO carries out their duties. Parents
referred to the SENCO as the vault of all knowledge, resources and contact in which
children would receive relevant support and teaching. The LEA’s were established in a
less supportive role but equally as demanding with regards to their administrative
burdens (Layton, 2005).

22. SENCO’s must take a proactive lead in developing the emotional intelligence of all staff
within the school, including governors and non-teaching staff, which in itself is a huge
challenge, so backing from the head teacher and/or governing body is essential.
However, Layton gave a comprehensive review of head-teachers in a 2008 study, in
which they were regarded as a significant 'hub of support' by only nine SENCO’s, whilst
other SENCO’s gave the perception that their expectations from the head-teacher was
to assume a management role. It was evident that the head-teachers did not take into
account the extent of workloads and responsibilities, suggesting that the SENCO is
often running the department alone whilst aiming to ensure they report back to the
head-teacher and SEN governor frequently (Layton, 2008).
OFSTED in its HMI report on ‘SEN and Disability Towards Inclusive Schools’
acknowledged that SENCO’s identified the perceptions of staff as a major barrier to
effective inclusion (OFSTED, 2004a: 2). Concurrently questions are raised about
whether or not SENCO’s ‘get in the way’ of what is considered as optimal SEN
provision. Wearmouth (1997, p.124) expressed the view that SENCO’s were
discriminating positively against some children, whilst Barnes expressed how the initial
identification of SEN within many schools is based upon an individual SENCO’s
perception of need (2008, p.237). The debate was recently considered in the Green
Paper Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Needs and Disability (DfE,
2011) which sought a concern regarding the issue of over identification and
inappropriate labelling of SEN children, therefore resulting in a culture of low
expectations (Querishi, 2014). ‘Labelling’, is when distances from the ‘norm’ are to
evenly spread and become used in disciplinary contexts to support the diagnosis
process in which children are categorized through specific labels, implying there is a
deficit (Allan, 2008). It must be said that ‘norms’ are socially constructed and therefore
by using labels they are artificially used for the purpose of referring to abnormality
(Glazzard, 2014).

23. COLLABARATIVE WORKING:
Collaborative working is the use of cultural activity theory (Engestrom, 1999, 2001)
which lies its focus on knowledge creation and exchange in the workplace and how
tasks can become redistributed in changing organizations and teams. Dilemmas and
conflicts tend to be generated when different communities or systems come together to
pursue common goals and it is mutual for Inter-professional and multi-agency teams, by
nature, to experience problems (Sloper 2004; Watson, 2006). With the introduction of
Every Child Matters (DfES, 2004) followed by The Children’s Plan (DfCSF, 2007), inter-
professional and multi-agency collaboration became increasingly important to policy-
makers and practitioners in children’s services. The 2010 Coalition government made
subsequent changes to LA's funding which resulted in expectations of services to
develop efficient ways of working together around child-centered provision (Glenny and
Roaf 2010)
The implications of workforce remodeling, bringing in teams of para-professionals to
support and deliver pupils learning and personalized services, places new and extra
demands on the SENCO as a strategic leader (Atkinson, 2002). Robertson (2004) put
forward, that working teams involving SENCO’s and support services
(education/health/social services) is time consuming and does not always produce
effective results (Robertson, 2004: 6). Unique problems arise when professionals from
different backgrounds and agencies work together and It is these difficulties that stem
partially from differing ideologies, working practices and priorities that are encountered
when practitioners from educational, social services, health and elsewhere work
collaboratively to further children’s interest (Rose and Norwich, 2014). This notion was
supported by Wenger (1998) who discussed identities changing as individuals joined a
multi-professional team, he acknowledged how multiple identities would create conflict
and tension calling for change and renegotiation of identities through effective multi-
agency teamwork.
There is evidence of considerable variations and difficulties in bringing about change
amongst professional groups, but seeking to blame individuals for their failures is
becoming all too common and avoids confronting more significant issues in the cohort
of SEN. Skrtic’s (1991) approach explained the need to look closely at SEN to find
other, perhaps plausible accounts for such situations. Clark et al (1998), Dyson and
Milward (2000) each uncovered significant concerns regarding Skrtic’s approach to the
limitations of SEN and education and expressed the failure of educational settings to

24. develop efficient organization structures. The persisting difficulties experienced by the
SENCO is argued to serve more of a wider and fundamental dilemma which lies at the
heart of SEN and education, such dilemma exists because of the continuous unstable
nature of special education and the instability this causes at different levels. Dyson and
Millward (2000) theorize how diversity is unlikely to level out, even through further
guidance and legislation, as it is argued to be a reoccurring source of conflict within
schools. Overall, each instability arises due to the very nature of SEN as a social
phenomenon and policy contexts continue to demonize SEN children and placed blame
on the SENCO rather than deconstructing the social, cultural and environmental factors
that show to result in educational disruption (Glazzard, 2014).
Power acts as a disciplinary mechanism to reinforce dominant discourses (Foucault,
1977, p.138). The duties of the SENCO role (assessment and diagnosis process,
IEP/EHC, inter-agency collaboration and progress reviews etc.) can be viewed through
Foucault’s theory as shameful acts of ‘surveillance’ which poses marginal identities on
individuals who present limits of normality. It is said that these techniques or ‘processes
of surveillance’ serve to correct deficits and therefore make differences visible but
instead in non-stigmatizing ways, when in reality diversity should be embraced in order
to eradicate it completely (Foucault, 1997; Graham and Slee, 2008). For inclusion to
succeed it needs to become disentangled from neo-liberal education policies (Slee,
2011) which will emphasise the values of self-reliance. Inclusion will only flourish
through a radical transformation of the educational structures and systems that underpin
SEN (Slee, 2011) by broadening out what already constitutes as successful practice
(Llyod, 2008).
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, this dissertation has succeeding in exploring the role of the Special Educational
Needs Coordinator (SENCO) in the context of mainstream education in the UK by
discussing the implications that ever-changing SEN policy has had on the professionals
and the individuals it concerns. It is important to note that some of these findings
reoccur across a variety of individual studies, but each ultimately lend weight in
indicating that it is the right time to take responsive action regarding the SENCO role
and the professional dilemmas they face (Crowne, 2003). This dissertation has
discussed the scope of SEN policy in a historical context so to understand the
developments so far and to comprehend what can already constitute as to good
practice for future developments. Despite the lengthy process of the SENCO and the
wider inclusive philosophy it imbeds in, the speed of the role overall has meant such
developments are not always intended by the strategies driving them (Cole, 2005). This
has been demonstrated by continued research, as well as the overall dissatisfaction
amongst SENCO’s themselves and the individuals they work alongside, including larger
educational and governing bodies (Robertson and Tod, 2012) .

25. The calculation In this work suggests that the role of the SENCO is a complex, ever-
changing role which is solely dependent on the characters personal perceptions of
need, their position within school hierarchical system, the influence they have on other
individuals, their knowledge and experiences, available financial provisions and last, but
not least, legislative statutory support. These determinations have been drawn by
considering some of the government proposals in reforming SEN, and critically
analyzing how such policies have had a direct impact upon the SENCO role. By also
giving rise to the work burdens and time management frustrations that have evidently
not improved over time, should allow for more in-depth research and developments in
the field, so to incorporate a new SENCO that can use their expertise efficiently and
work within regulations that fully support them (Mittler, 2000).
Although there have been identifiable trends in the role throughout this paper and the
surrounding literature discussed, there are significant uncertainties that remain
fundamental issues, such as how budgets will be allocated, how the role will be
allocated and the substantial gap between intentions and realities. SENCO’s are viewed
as crucial ‘agents of change’ in working with children, families, colleagues and external
agencies in such challenging circumstances that are disrupted by a turbulence of policy
changes and this should be acknowledged despite the ongoing debate that has
engulfed them and the scope of SEN which challenges them (Davies; Garner and Lee,
1998).
Recommendations for future developments in the role of the SENCO should be
paramount to policy makers and educational leaders in the UK. Through this research
and the research of others there are several recommendations for developments that
could succeed in enhancing the SENCO profession:
• Convenient and relevant meetings on a regular basis (which
includes parents, external agencies, TA’s, other staff and children).
• Teacher openness to change and the future of evolving SEN .
• Reviewing target setting initiatives so to construct a multi-approach
target plan that can be amended easily across settings.
• Empower teachers through further training and upskilling.
• Empower the SENCO with more decision making and managerial
status.
• Continue to provide information to all parties and construct a way of
working in multi-agency teams to not cross reference.
• Changes to formal and informal communication that exists within
some schools and the development of better hierarchical systems so there are
not compartmentalized views.

26. Overall, the discussion and findings here may facilitate improvements in the context of
SEN and education, as it is no doubt the nature of the SENCO will only bring a plethora
of more challenges in the face of the UK SEN support system. Despite the SENCO role
seemingly failing at such aspects, or the surrounding legislation that fails them and
consequently their pupils, they still form the ‘cog’ of school practices in continuing to aid
in ensuring child-specific and SEN provisions are undertaken and encompassing a
whole school approach to the wider inclusive philosophy.
REFERNCES
Abbot, D., Watson, D., & Townsley, R. (2005) The proof of pudding: What diffence does
multi-agency working make to families with disabled children with complex health care
needs? Child and family social work. 228-238
Armstrong, D. & Squires, G., 2012. Contemporary issues in special educational needs:
considering the whole child, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Atkinson, M (2002) Multi-agency working: A detailed study. Slough: National Foundation
for Educational research
Audit Commission (2002) Statutory Assessment and Statements of Special Educational
Needs: In Need of Review? Wetherby: Audit Commission.
Ball, S. J. (2003) The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of
Education Policy. 18, 2, 215-228.
Barbara Ann Cole (2005) Mission Impossible? Special Educational Needs, inclusion
and the re-conceptualization of the role of the SENCO in England Wales, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 20:3, 287-307
Barnes, P. (2008) Multi-agency working: what are the perspectives of SENCO’s and
parents regarding its implementation. British Journal of Special Education. 230-240
Bass, L., and C. Gerstl-Pepin. (2011) 'Declaring Bankruptcy of Educational Inequality.'
Educational Policy 18
Blackmore, J. (2006) 'Social Justice and the Study and Practice of Leadership in
Education: A Feminist History.' Journal of Educational Administration and History 185-
200
Blatchford, P., Russel, A. and Webster, R. (2012) Reassessing the Impact of Teaching
Assistants: How Research Challenges Practice and Policy, London: Routledge.
Bringhouse, H. (2009) 'Educational Equality and School Reform' In Educational
Equality, Edited by G. Haydon. London: Continuum.

27. Burnett, N., 2005. Leadership and SEN- Meeting the challenge in Special and
Mainstream Settings, United Kingdom: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.
Capper, P., G. Theoharis, and J. Sebastian. (2006) 'Towards a Framework for
Preparing Leaders for Social Justice. Journal of Educational Administration. 209-224
Cheminais, R., 2005. Every Child Matters: new role for SENCO’s: [a practical guide],
London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.
Clough, P., 1998. Managing inclusive education: from policy to experience, London:
Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Cole, B. A. (2005) 'Mission impossible? Special educational needs, inclusion and the re-
conceptualization of the role of the SENCO in England and Wales'. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 20, pp. 287-307
Crowne, E., 2003. Developing inclusive practice: the SENCO’s role in managing change
1st ed., United Kingdom: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.
Clark, C., Dyson, A., Milward, A. and Skidmore, D. (1995) Innovatory Practice in
Mainstream Schools for Special Educational Needs. London: HMSO.
Crowther (1997) The role of the SENCO in schools: analytical report. Newcastle Upon
Tyne: University of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Day, C. (2005) Sustaining Success in Challenging Contexts: Leadership in English
Schools. Journal of Educational Administration. 573-583
Davies, J., Garner, P. and Lee, J. (1998) SENCO’s and the Code: no longer practicing.
In J. Davies, P. Garner and J. Lee (eds) Managing special needs in mainstream
schools: the role of the SENCO. P. 34-49. London
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Brown, E.,
Ahtasidou, E. & Kington, A. (2009) The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil
Outcomes: Final Report. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Dean, J., 1996. Managing special needs in the primary school, New York: Taylor &
Francis, Inc.
DCSF). (2008). Education (Special Educational Needs Coordinators) (England)
Regulations 2008. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.
DCSF (2004) Removing barriers to Achievement. London
DfE) (2010) The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. London and
Norwich: TSO.
DfE) (2011a) Support and aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs
and Disability. A Consultation. London and Norwich: TSO.

28. DfE) (2011b) Children with Special Needs: An Analysis - 2011. [Online at:
www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/statistics/a00198389/dfe-children-with-
sepcial-educational-needs-an-analysis-2011]. Accessed: 1st April 2015
DfEE) (1997) Excellence in Schools. London.
(DfES) (2004) Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Governments Strategy for SEN.
Nottingham: DfES.
Dimmock, C. (2002) 'Educational leadership: taking account of complex global and
cultural contexts'. In A. Walker& C. Dimmock (eds), School Leadership and
Administration: Adopting a Cultural Perspective. pp. 33-34. London: RoutledgeFalmer
Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (2000) Schools and Special Needs. London: Sage.
Edmunds, A., and R. Macmillan, eds. (2010) Leadership for Inclusion. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers
Edwards, A. (2005) Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner.
International Journal of educational Research. 168-182
Ellis, S., Todd, J. and Graham-Matheson, L. (2012) Reflection, Renewal and Reality:
Teachers Experience of Special Educational Needs ad Inclusion. Birmingham:
NASWUT.
Engenstorm(2001) Expansive learning at work: towards an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work. 133-156
Florain, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011) Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational
research journal. 813-828
Forde, C., M. McMahon, A. D. McPhee, and F. Patrick (2006). Professional
Development Reflection and Enquiry. London: Paul Chapman.
Foucault, M. (1997) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Gaskell, S., and Leadbetter, J. (2009) Educational psychologists and multi-agency
working: Exploring professional identity. Educational Psychology in Practice. 97-111
Hallett, F. & Hallett, G. (2010) Transforming the Role of the SENCO. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Hargreaves, A., and D. Shirley. (2012) The Global Fourth Way. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Hart, S., Dixon, A., Drummond, M. J. and McIntyre, D. (2004) Learning without Limits.
Maidenhead: Open University Press
Hartley, D. (2010) 'Paradigms: how far does research in distributed leadership "stretch"?
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, pp. 271-85

29. Hattam, R. (2009) 'Researching for Social Justice: Contextual, conceptual and
methodological Challenges' Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education.
Hodkinson, A. & Vickerman, P., 2009. Key Issues in Special Educational Needs and
Inclusion (Education Studies: Key Issues series), United Kingdom: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Kearns, H. (2005) Exploring the experimental learning of special educational needs
coordinators. Journal of inservice education. 147-156
Laluvein, K. (2010) Variations on a theme: parents and teachers talking. Support for
Learning, 25, 4, 195-199
Lamb, B. (2009). Lamb Inquiry: Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence.
Nottingham. DCSF Publications.
Layton, L. (2005) ' Special educational needs coordinators and leadership: a role too
far?' Support for Learning, 20, pp. 53-60
Lloyd, C. (2008) Removing barriers to achievement: a strategy for inclusion or
exclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education. 12, 2, 221-236
MacBeath, J. E. C. & Dempster, N. (2009) Connecting Leadership and Learning:
Principles for Practice. London: Routledge
MacBeath, J., Galton, M., Steward, S., MacBeath, A. and Page, C. (2006) The Costs of
Inclusion: A Study of Inclusion Policy and Practice in English Primary, Secondary and
Special Schools, Report for the National Union of Teachers. Cambridge: Faculty of
Education.
Mackenzie, S. (2007) 'A review of recent developments in the role of the SENCO in the
UK,' British Journal of Special Education, 34 (4), pp. 212-218.
Mackenzie, S. (2011) ‘I didn’t choose SEN, it chose me: careers in special educational
needs,’ British Journal of Special Education, in press.
Mackenzie, S. (2011) ''It's been a bit of a rollercoaster': special educational needs,
emotional labour and emotion work', International Journal of Inclusive Education, First
published on: 17 June 2011 (iFirst) Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.538869. (Accessed 19 July 2011).
Marks, J. (2000) Special Educational Needs: An analysis of a new growth industry.
London: Centre for Policy students.
Martha J. Buell, Rena Hallam, Michael Gamel-Mccormick and Scott Scheer (1999) A
Survey of General and Special Education Teachers' Perspectives and In-service Needs
Concerning Inclusion, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
46:2 153-156.

30. Morewood, G. D. (2008) The 21st Century SENCO. SENCO Update, 100. London:
Optimus Publishing.
Norwich, B. (2008) What future for special schools and inclusion? Conceptual and
professional perspectives. British Journal of Special Education. 35, 3, 136.
Oldham, J. & Radford, J. (2011) ' Secondary SENCO leadership: a universal or
specialist role?' British Journal of Special Education, 38, pp. 126-34.
Pearson, S. & Mitchell, R. (2013) The recruitment induction and retention of Special
Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCO's). <
http://www.nasen.org.uk/uploads/publications/269.pdf > (accessed 27th March)
Pearson, S. & Ralph, S. (2017) 'The identity of SENCO;s: insights through images.'
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7, pp. 36-45
Pearson, S. (2008a) 'Deafened by silence or by the sound of footsteps? An investigation
of the recruitment, induction and retention of special educational needs coordinators
(SENCO's) in England. 'Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8, pp. 96-
110
Pearson, S. (2010) The Role of Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCO's):
'To Be or Not To Be'. The Psychology of Education Review. 30-38
Poon_McBrayer, K. F. (2012) Implementing the SENCO system in Hong Kong: an initial
investigation. British Journal of Special Education. 94-101
Robertson, C. (2005a) Time for the tinkering to stop. Special Children, 168,
September/October, 31.
Robertson, C. and Todd, J. (2012) Are individual education plans still useful? SENCO
Update. 133
Rosen-Webb, S. M. (2011) 'Nobody tells you how to be a SENCO.' British Journal of
Special Education, 38, pp. 159-68
Ryan, J. (2006)
Slee, R. (2011) The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education.
Sloper, P. (2004) Facilitators and barriers for coordinated multiagency services. Child:
Care, health and development.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991) Behind Special Education: A Critical Analysis of Professional
Culture and School Organization. Denver
Teather, S. (2011) Special needs plans gives parents a choice. The Guardian, 14th
March [Online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/14/special-needs-
plans-give-choice]. Accessed on: 12th march)

31. Tissot, C. (2013) 'The role of SENCOs as leaders.' British Journal of Special Education,
40, pp. 33-40.
TTA (1998) National standards for SEN coordinators. London: TTA. University of
Northampton
Watson, H (2006). Facilitating effective working in multi-agency co-located teams.
Educational and Child Pyschology
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.