Keynote delivered by Chris Rossiter at ResearchSEND 18.11.2017

1. Through the
looking glass
Chris Rossiter
Director
Chris.rossiter@driveryouthtrust.com
@_chrisrossiter

2. Me
Driver Youth Trust
Work & Organisational
psychologist
Chair of Governors
@_chrisrossiter
2

3. Research
Where does SEND fit with England’s
educational public policy agenda?
Are conventional assumptions about
disadvantage and SEND accurate?
How does the dominant narrative of social
disadvantage interact with SEND?
3

4. Method
Inclusion/exclusion
criteria.
Narrative synthesis.
All from the comfort
of my desk…
4

5. 5

6. ”
Confusion over which children and young people are the true focus of literacy
improvement.
‘improving reading overall, and narrowing the
attainment gap between disadvantaged
and their peers’
(DfE, 2015, p.9).
6

7. ”
Lack of clarity around what is meant by disadvantage and a limited discussion of SEND.
‘disadvantaged children are disproportionately
likely to experience special educational needs ...
... which is associated with lower educational
outcomes’
(Hutchinson and Dunford, 2016, p.41)
7

8. ”
Strategies that more readily focus on those children and young people who can ‘catch up’
with limited support, at the expense of more specialist strategies appropriate for SEND
learners.
‘the government expects teachers to do everything they
to foster a love of reading’
(DfE, 2015, p.20).
8

9. ”
Family background as the supposed reason behind failure to make progress, when in
reality it is the failure to address the requirements of children and young people with SEND
within the mainstream school system.
‘Fathers do read to their children less, particularly low-
income fathers.’
(ROGO, 2014, p.33).
9

10. ”
Considerable positivity around the aspirations for children and young people, with
suggestions for practice.
‘‘virtually every child to read, regardless of the social
economic circumstances of their neighbourhoods, the
ethnicity of their pupils, the languages spoken at home
most special educational needs or disabilities’
(Ofsted, 2011, p.10).
10

11. Findings
 Lots of great ideas on building universal provision.
 An unchallenged assumption that literacy and reading are the same thing.
 Good thinking on supporting families who may have limited access to funding or
social intellectual capital.
 Too many stereotypes and not enough nuance.
 Lazy use of language.
 Limited mention of SEND.
 Limited recognition that many children will never achieve a high level of reading
ability but can, nevertheless, still access a broad curriculum and achieve well
academically.
11

12. ”
There is no greater disadvantage
than being ignored, there is no
group of children more ignored,
than those with SEND.
12

13. So, what?
Education leaders and policy wonks ignore
SEND, when considering bigger picture
developments in education.
Shocker.
We got this… right?
13

14. Evidence based practice
There is a need more than ever to implement
what works.
The importance of EBP, for you and them.
The interaction between SEND and the
educational environment is complex.
14

15. Evidence based practice
There is a need more than ever to implement
what works.
The importance of EBP, for you and them.
15

16. 16

17. What can you do?
Write.
Share examples of your work.
Question practice based on a wide range of data
sources – literature, stakeholders, internal data
and your expertise.
17