‘The understanding of inclusion in education has transcended the assumption that inclusion is about students with special needs. It concerns the inclusion of all children’ (Qvortrup and Qvortrup, 2017: 803).

Inclusion can mean adapting the layout of a classroom to provide enough space for a wheelchair, to providing additional resources or approaches to teaching to ensure all children have equal opportunity to engage within stimulating learning experiences which enhance their skills and development.

Inclusion is therefore ‘…quality education while respecting diversity and the different needs and abilities, characteristics and learning expectations of the students and communities, eliminating all forms of discrimination’ (Alexiadou and Essex, 2016:7) and valuing children to develop their talents and reach their learning potentials.

Awareness, understanding, responsiveness and the ability to adapt are key sensibilities underpinning an inclusive environment. Ensuring practice is inclusive can be somewhat difficult, where a lack of knowledge, experience or careful planning can cause tension within practice and outcomes for children (DfE, 2014). Despite this, it’s not always the case for all teachers to know every detail of a child’s SEN or additional need, and how to approach planning, teaching and learning to cater for their needs.

It’s imperative that teachers have opportunities for CPD and training to support additional needs; enhancing their knowledge and confidence to develop their skills within practice, as Hintz et al (2015) finds teachers feel worried about having inadequate skills to support children with additional needs.

The way in which we understand and view the concept of inclusion, diversity and difference is likely to inform our practice. Prior to the 1980’s, the concept of inclusion was defined through the Medical or Functional Model which believed children with disabilities or additional needs couldn’t be educated, seeing their needs as a deficit or impairment (Griffo, 2014).

Following an enquiry exploring the educational needs of children, the Warnock Report (1978; Baldock, Fitzgerald and Kay, 2009) and the Education Act (1981; Legislation.gov.uk, 1981) obliged the opportunity for children with additional needs to have access to integration within mainstream education if suited/appropriate to their needs (Baldock, Fitzgerald and Kay, 2009).

In light of these documents, policy (Unicef, 1989, DfE, 2014) continues to drive practice to value difference and diversity, provide rich, inclusive environments catering to children’s strengths and challenge their learning and at the core, taking steps to remove barriers to learning (DfE, 2014). The supports all children having equal rights, opportunities and access to achieve their highest potential.

Increasingly, the Transactional Model is valued within practice I’ve experienced, identifying how barriers to learning can be overcome (Alexiadou and Essex, 2016) in order for children to have equal access and participation to learning and development.

Whole class ‘Funky Fingers’, ‘Dough Gym’ activities and pom poms provided whole class opportunities to develop fine manipulative skills and strength, supporting development of appropriate grip needed for writing (DfE, 2012). Targeted objectives were made for a specific child with an interest in the writing area to support his fine manipulative skills to remove current barriers to writing, drawing and all fine motor activities. Activities included threading pasta/beads, manipulating playdough and transporting sized objects with tweezers. Specific, appropriate literacy objectives were targeted, such as representing one letter per session from his name by making marks in sand, using various pens/pencils and holding a pom pom within the palm of the hand to support pen grip. This provided repetition, practice and challenge to strengthen fine manipulative skills, resulting in the child mastering an appropriate grasp from mid to end of term (see pictures below).

This demonstrates a barrier to learning being overcome through effective support and inclusive opportunities, where targeted objectives supported the child in enhancing their fine motor development and mastering an appropriate, effective tripod grip.

Although the Functional Model doesn’t consider the holistic child, this approach can be useful when identifying specific children who need additional intervention (Griffo, 2014) to enhance and support their needs and for their learning potentials to flourish.

Alongside fostering an inclusive classroom, positive, working relationships were noticed between the class teacher, TA, SENCO and parents/carers- fostering an inclusive environment. An instance within SBT1 involved practitioners closely observing a child’s behaviours, actions, and verbalisations- highlighting strong characteristics of ADHD and Autism (whom had no prior diagnosis). This led to a collaborative approach where the class teacher, I, the TA, SENCO and parents worked closely together to communicate information regarding the child’s behaviours, verbalisations, characteristics and potential interventions to support the child, with a referral to wider agencies following this process.

A potential issue within this context may be parents/carers not reciprocating the collaborative approach and not sharing potentially useful information. However, the parents communicated their own experiences and concerns with their child, appearing to have a positive, motivated attitude to take on board and apply the advice provided to support their child. This scenario demonstrates the cruciality in developing partnerships and positive relationships within a child’s social ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to ensure families and children feel valued and supported within an inclusive, diverse environment to achieve their maximum learning potential.

Universal steps which can support children with additional needs include:

• Observe- be aware of their needs within different contexts
• Listen to the child before assuming- to create child centred approach, empowering their right to a voice, opinion and say (Unicef, 1989)
• Evaluate the surroundings/situation– is there a trigger or reason for the behaviour? Could more be done in the environment to support their needs? What current approaches are effective/ineffective?
• Don’t panic- all children’s needs are different and unique to them, we won’t always be experts in every area so:
• Communicate!-with parents, practitioners and SENCO to share information, best practice and next steps

Creating an inclusive classroom is underpinned by understanding we are all unique and hold different strengths, weaknesses and interests; fostering positive, supportive and collaborative relationships rooted in mutual respect (TS1a) between children, families, teachers and outside agencies and providing a rich, stimulating environment which considers all children’s needs.

Afterall,

Reference List:

Alexiadou, N. and Essex, J. (2016) Teacher education for inclusive practice- responding to policy. European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 39(1), p. 5-19.

Baldock, P., Fitzgerald, D. and Kay, J. (2009) Understanding Early Years Policy(2^ndedn). London: SAGE Publications.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Department for Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Early Education.

Department for Education (2014) Special educational needs and disability code of practice (SEND): 0 to 25 years. Statutory guidance for organisations who work with and support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.Department for Health, England: Crown Copyright.

Griffo, G. (2014) Models of disability, ideas of justice, and the challenge of full participation.Modern Italy, Vol. 19(2), p. 147-159.

Hintz, A. Paal, M. Urton, K. Krull, J. Wilbert, J. et al (2015) Teachers perceptions of opportunities and threats concerning inclusive schooling in Germany at an Early Stage of Inclusion: Analyses of Mixed Methodology Approach. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, Special Issue on Inclusive Education, Vol.14(3), p.357-374.

Legislation.gov.uk. (1981). Education Act 1981. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/60/pdfs/ukpga_19810060_en.pdf Date accessed: 16/01/19.

Qvortrup, A. and Qvortrup, L. (2017) Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 22(7), p. 803-817.

Unicef (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Kingdom: Unicef.  Available at: https://353ld710iigr2n4po7k4kgvv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_summary.pdf   Date accessed: 15/01/19

This blog will explore the key finding from the Bold Beginnings Report (Ofsted, 2017: 5) ‘Reading was at the heart of the curriculum’, with reference to and reflection upon previous classroom experiences. Within the Early Year’s Foundation Stage (EYFS, DfE, 2012), reading underpins the prime area of learning of Literacy, recognised as the foundations for development of language, comprehension and vocabulary (Ofsted, 2017).

SBT1 highlighted reading as being at the heart of the Reception classroom. An effective pedagogical practice observed was the ‘5 a day’ approach, aiming to read 5 stories a day to children. Some may view this pedagogical approach as forceful (Park et al, 2015), however this role model with a love, motivation and understanding of the value of reading provides exposure for children to experience a wide range of literature texts, genres, compositions, language, concepts, print and grammar. Comments including ‘This is my favourite book”, “I like reading stories” and “Reading stories makes me happy” highlight enjoyment, motivation and a desire to voluntarily read (Kucirkova, Littleton and Cremin, 2017). ‘This growing engagement with books and the enjoyment of narrative is the key to young children’s reading development’ (Collins and Svensson, 2010:82).

Fundamentally,  opportunities for children to discuss, question and share ideas and experiences are provided, promoting children’s curiosity, motivation and engagement in reading for pleasure. ‘Reading and discussing the same texts enables children to articulate these processes, to recognise what they do as readers and why, and to learn from what others say’ (Ofsted, 2017:5). The children appear to enjoy the routine and structure of being read 5 stories a day, showing interest, attention and enjoyment of the literature. Although this pedagogical practice appears to be effective, the class teacher faces the challenge of day to day constraints of teaching, meaning the ‘5 a day’ sometimes gets pushed aside. Despite this, children notice when 5 books haven’t been read, where every effort is made the next day to align with the routine of the approach.

SBT1 values a child’s wider eco-system (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) when providing for reading opportunities, where parents, carers and friends are invited in every Friday afternoon before the day ends to read with their children, creating a shared opportunity to value and promote a love for reading (Li, Martin and Wei-Jun Jean Yeung, 2017). ‘The reciprocal nature of children’s literacy learning and how what is learned at home comes into school, and what is learned in school also shows up for the children as they interact with family members…’. Thus, mutual relationships can exist between school, home, and community literacy practices…’ (Saracho, 2016:630).

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Theory of Human Ecology.

Within SBT1, ‘Naughty Bus’ was used as a stimulus to support children with Autism with a heavy interest in vehicles to engage in play across additional areas of development. The story provided context and purpose for engaging in a variety of ways, extended to making a bus using loose parts materials, drawing pictures of vehicles and sharing experiences of travelling in vehicles. Providing these opportunities around the text captured enjoyment, engagement and reader response (Huntsinger, Jose and Luo, 2016), valuing the children’s interests to stimulate and motivate learning.

Some pupils may not be developmentally ready to read words (Ofsted, 2017), impacted by early experiences and abilities to identify graphemes with corresponding sounds and to master the decoding process- how letters and sounds are embedded, segmented and blended (Park et al, 2015).

Daily phonics sessions using Big Cat Phonics, Funky Fingers activities and developmentally appropriate tasks provide children with challenging yet engaging and appropriate experiences to grasp and master the phonological structure of reading. Pupils are assessed very frequently in recognition of graphemes and reading, which may put pressure on children who are struggling. Despite this, daily phonics sessions revisit all graphemes and phonemes previously covered, meaning children can continuously be reminded and practice unfamiliar and more difficult phonemes, cementing into their understandings.

The choice to read a story to the class allows children to actively construct and communicate a deeper level of understanding through reference to past experiences, interests and using illustrations in (Piaget, 1958; Glazzard et al, 2010) of literature, whether the words are systematically read or not. This experience builds the foundations for understanding that marks on the page represent meaning, as Goouch and Lambirth (2017) highlight hearing books read and early reading opportunities transform marks on the page into people, worlds and concepts.

A recent Ofsted visit to my school concluded a need for more consistent, quality phonics sessions and reading/writing opportunities across KS1. This may underpin the emphasis and value the class teacher places on reading within the Reception classroom alongside the benefits of reading, forming the foundations and building blocks for crucial literate skills required for the transition to KS1 and for lifelong learning. I aim to incorporate the pedagogical approaches adopted by my class teacher within my own classroom, to inspire, motivate and engage children’s learning to flourish as a confident, competent reader.

Reference List:

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Collins, F. and Svensson, C. (2010) If I had a magic wand I’d magic her out of the book: the rich literacy practices of competent early readers. Early Years: An International Research Journal. Vol. 28(1), p. 81-91.

Department for Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Early Education.

Glazzard, J., Chadwick, D., Webster, A. and Percival, J. (2010) Assessment for Learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: SAGE Publications.

Goouch, K. & Lambirth, A. (2017). Teaching Early Reading & Phonics: Creative Approaches To Early Literacy. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., & Luo, Z. (2016). Parental facilitation of early mathematics and reading skills and knowledge through encouragement of home-based activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37(1), 1–15.

Kucirkova, N, Littleton, K. and Cremin, T. (2017) Young children’s reading for pleasure with digital books: six key facets of engagement.Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol.47(1), p. 67-84.

Li, H., Martin, A.J. and Wei-Jun Jean Yeung. (2017) Academic risk and resilience for children and young people in Asia. Educational Psychology, Vol 37(8), p. 921-929.

Ofsted (2017) Bold Beginnings: The Reception curriculum in a sample of good and outstanding primary schools. Manchester: Ofsted. Available at https://schoolsweek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/28933-Ofsted-Early-Years-Curriculum-Report.pdf. (Accessed on 28 November 2018).

Park, Y., Chaparro, E.A., Preciado, J. and Cummings, K.D. (2015) Is Earlier Better? Mastery of Reading Fluency in Early Schooling. Early Education and Development, Vol. 26(8), p. 1187-1209.

Saracho, O.N. (2016) Literacy in the twenty-first century: children, families and policy. Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 187(3), p. 630-643.

Every child has the right to be kept safe, protected from harm and for their voice to be listened to and taken seriously (Unicef, 1989). It is critical as child care professionals to place the needs, safety and wellbeing of all children at the centre of safeguarding and every day practice.

To safeguard and promote the wellbeing of all children underpins the complexities of every day practice (DfE, 2018)- being confident, knowledgeable and proactive in identifying concerns, recording and sharing information with the appropriate professionals and taking prompt action, ensuring the right to a consistent, quality education which promotes children’s’ safety, welfare and fulfilment of learning potentials is intact (Unicef, 1989).

NSPCC (2018) have identified a dramatic increase in child cruelty and neglect offences across the United Kingdom (UK). Neglect is ‘…the ongoing failure to meet a child’s basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse’ (NSPCC, 2018).

Neglect is the overarching term, where specific types of neglect include:

• Emotional-Failing to nurture and promote the mental wellbeing and emotional development
• Educational-A failure to support children’s right to an education (Unicef, 1989)
• Medical-Failing to provide or follow medical advice or treatments                                                     
• Physical-A failure to support the basic physiological and safety needs- safety, security, food, warmth, shelter. These are crucial components which require to be satisfied in order to reach maximum learning potentials (Maslow, 1943; Kaur, 2013)

Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, available here

It’s argued the extent in which teachers can prevent abuse or neglect can be difficult as mistreatment of children is more likely to occur outside of the classroom (Parton, 2010). Questioning this viewpoint, neglect can still occur within the classroom if professionals are not aware, alert and vigilant in identifying concerns, asking for help and sharing information, putting the safety and wellbeing of children at risk. All teachers upon the recruitment process partake in routine safeguarding training, with whole staff, in house training sessions every 6 months-1 year, supporting and extending their knowledge to enhance confidence in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children.

‘Abuse of children is not a disease entity but a pattern on behaviour and like all such patterns it has a multiplicity of paths by which it is reached’ (Scott, 1973; ACDS, 2015).

There has been increasing emphasis placed on multi-agency working in child protection in the UK…’ (Richards, 2018:44) as a result of missed opportunities being identified with child protection cases, including a lack of information sharing and communication.

Efficient and effective communication is fundamental to build positive and supportive relationships between professionals, the school and home to promote children’s welfare and keep them safe. It is imperative professionals act upon their concerns or suspicions of children being in danger immediately (NSPCC, 2018) by contacting the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) and sharing information or observations expressing concern in regard to the welfare, safety and wellbeing of children- be it little or big. If any situation appears ambiguous or practitioners are uncertain, the DSL is the priority person to approach.

Coordination of information between professionals can identify potential links, patterns and concerns regarding a child’s safety and physical, mental and social wellbeing (DfE, 2018). This awareness can drive the next steps and protocols to be taken to ensure a child’s situation is not brushed under the carpet, rather their right to be protected and kept safe (Unicef, 1989) is intact, enhancing and improving outcomes for all children and young people (Cheminais, 2009).

As a former Keyworker, Playworker and Teaching Assistant within settings caring for children across the ages of 0-12, I’ve often noticed ambiguous or questionable bruises, cuts, swellings, verbalisations made by children and observations on behaviour which question the physical, emotional and sexual wellbeing of children. Although some occurrences were concluded as innocent situations, my role as the professional places the safety and wellbeing of children at the heart, considering all possible causes, perspectives and outcomes. This means questions may need to be asked to understand the nature of the situation or observations being carried out following to track children’s’ behaviour, responses and overall wellbeing.

When considering my own future classroom, I will ensure to be fully aware of each child’s background, history and situation, which can help to identify any potential triggers. I believe it is crucial for all children to have an awareness of what neglect/abuse is, which could be highlighted in PSED sessions- subtly exploring emotions, social issues and promoting children’s right to a voice. The nature of discussions may cause children to feel distressed or discouraged, needing support from a TA within sessions. However, without an awareness of neglect, children may find it difficult to feel empowered to keep themselves safe (Turvey, 2016). The children would know the classroom is a safe space for questioning and discussing any issues or experiences within their lives, with an open door, open mind approach at the heart of the classroom.

Reference List:

ACDS. (2015) The role of serious case reviews in improving the child protection system. United Kingdom: The Virtual Staff College.

Cheminais, R. (2009) Effective Multi-agency Partnerships.London: Sage Publications.

Department for Education (2018) Keeping Children Safe in Education. Statutory Guidance for Schools and Colleges. Department for Education: Crown Copyright.

Kaur, A. (2013) Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory: Applications and Criticisms. Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, Vol. 3(10), p. 1061-1064.

NSPCC (2018) Signs, symptoms and effects of child abuse and neglect [online] London: NSPCC. Available from: <https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/signs-symptoms-effects/Date accessed: 13/01/19.

Parton, N. (2010) Child Protection and Safeguarding in England: Changing and Compeing Conceptions of Risk and their Implications for Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, Vol 41(5), p. 854-875

Richards, C. (2018) ‘It’s a big ask when your job is to teach children to read, write and to count’: the experiences of school staff in early help and child protection. Pastoral Care in Education, Vol 36(1), p.44.56.

Turvey, K., Potter, J., Burton, J., Allen, J. and Sharp, J. (2016) Primary computing & digital technologies: knowledge, understanding & practice, London: Learning Matters.

Unicef (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Kingdom: Unicef.  Available at: https://353ld710iigr2n4po7k4kgvv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_summary.pdf   Date accessed: 13/01/19

The recent computing task involved four Reception children with differing levels of needs. Observations highlighted the children’s levels of development, previous experience with technology concepts and interests. I decided to introduce concepts of computing within a context of interest, as Marsh (2005) advocates children experience increased motivation to engage in an activity when components compliment their interests. Stevens-Smith (2016) similarly considers children’s interests as an ‘intrinsic motivator’ to engage with an activity through feeling a sense of empowerment and familiarity, increasing the likelihood of children fulfilling their maximum learning potential (Maslow, 1943; Lester et al, 2010).

Berry (2014) would argue, in order to understand and learn about algorithms, children need to experience them by creating them. Aligning with this view, Piaget (1958; Gray and MacBlain, 2012) values active experiences to construct deeper understanding and meaning. Consideration of these perspectives placed value on physical, real world experiences for children to understand and construct meaning of computing concepts, acting as the rationale for the activity idea.

Observations highlighted a strong interest in outdoor play and making models using Duplo to incorporate into their play. I came up with the idea of children making their own remote control (out of Duplo) and having to take turns to use their control and directional language to direct another person to an agreed location in the garden.
The objective of the task therefore focused on modelling, scaffolding and teaching children to use a sequence of instructions to travel from a starting location to an end location, aligning with their interests to potentially stimulate their learning.

The Early Years Foundation Stage (DfE, 2012) children need to ‘…select and use technology for particular purposes’ (DfE, 2012: 42) to reach the ELG. Although real, physical technology was not at the heart of this task, the technological concepts remain the same, using the processes within computing to solve real-world problems (Turvey et al, 2016). The activity provided opportunities to understand technology can be used in different contexts and how to create algorithms.

During the introduction, children demonstrated by moving their bodies the meaning of directional terminology, mainly forwards and backwards. I then introduced the directions of left and right, creating key cards for children to refer to as a prompt.

I modelled the activity by being the ‘walker’, where open-ended questions were asked to the children to stimulate their thinking and provide me with instructions to travel to an end location:The children each had a turn at being the ‘walker’ and the ‘directioner’.

After demonstrating the activity, I recognise the importance of modelling tasks to provide a visual example of how to do an activity and what key skills/language may be involved in achieving this (Bandura, 1977). Children appeared comfortable in identifying the terms forward and backwards to the correct direction, which may be due to the terms being familiar to children’s play experiences.

Upon reflection, I may have overestimated children’s understandings of the terminology ‘left’ and ‘right’, as children appeared to find it difficult to correctly identify which term matched which direction when giving instructions. Despite this, modelling this language and providing a visual to refer to means children have had exposure to richer, deeper concepts involved in creating algorithms.

Children showed high enthusiasm in using their own creations/controls to assist in directing another person. Following the activity, observations within natural, free flow play highlighted children using the concept of controls and physical control creations. This made me feel a sense of achievement as the foundations for algorithms had been taught, scaffolded and practiced, whereby children showed motivation and enthusiasm to incorporate elements of this within their own play.

This activity has highlighted value on observing interactions and planning for learning experiences which are memorable, meaningful and motivating for children to engage, feel inspired and fundamentally provide the foundation learning experiences which assist in ensuring all children fulfil their maximum learning potential (Cullen, Harris and Hill, 2012).

Reference List:

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.

Berry, M. (2014) Computing in the national curriculum; a guide for primary teachers [online] Available: < http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/CASPrimaryComputing.pdf > (accessed 22/10/18)

Cullen, R., Harris, M., Hill, R. (2012) The Learner Centred Curriculum: Design and Implementation. CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Department for Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Early Education.

Gray, C. and MacBlain, S. (2012) Learning Theories in Childhood. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Marsh, J. (2005) Digital Beginnings: Young children’s use of popular culture, media and new technologies. Literacy Research Centre, University of Sheffield.

Stevens-Smith, D.A. (2016) Active Bodies/Active Brains: Practical Applications Using Physical Engagement to Enhance Brain Development. Strategies, a Journal for Physical and Sports Educators, Vol.29(6), p. 3-7.

Turvey, K., Potter, J., Burton, J., Allen, J. and Sharp, J. (2016) Primary computing & digital technologies: knowledge, understanding & practice. London: Learning Matters.