What is inclusion?

There are many ways to describe inclusion, and it is difficult to simply select one definition as it is such a complex concept. Thomas, Walker & Webb suggest that an inclusive school contains the following elements:

‘It is community based;

It is barrier- free; physically in terms of the building and grounds and educationally in terms of curricula;

It promotes collaboration; an inclusive school works with, rather than competitively against, other schools;

It promotes equality.’

(Thomas, Walker & Webb 1998: 15-16)

Inclusivity is also mentioned in policy. Part 2 of the Teachers’ Standards clearly states that teachers must treat pupils with dignity (TS Part 2: 1a) and show tolerance of and respect for the rights of others (TS Part 2: 1c). Though it is important to be aware of what inclusivity is, it only becomes meaningful when it is put in practice.

Reflection: UBT

In UBT, I have attended multiple lectures regarding inclusivity. Inclusion ‘… is based on a values system that welcomes and celebrates diversity’ (Education in Action, 2014), so inclusion is therefore a response to learner diversity. Instead of using labels such as Special Educational Needs and Disability (hereby SEND) to define a child, we should be welcoming and celebrating the diversity a child with SEND can bring to the classroom. As Collett suggests, ‘one of the most powerful barriers to the equal participation of children with SEND… is the prejudicial attitudes of others.’ (Collet 2018: 9) Therefore, it is extremely important for teachers – especially in their position as role models – to treat all children as equals to combat and potentially stop the prejudicial attitudes of others.

We also discussed the reconsideration of how pupils with SEND are supported in class. Dr Daniella Alexandra suggested that the ‘velcro Teaching Assistant’ (hereby TA) can have a negative impact on SEND pupils (Alexandra, 2019). This is supported by Blatchford & Webster’s study on the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff (DISS) which concluded that pupils receiving the most TA support made less progress than pupils who received little or no TA support. (Blatchford & Webster, 2012) This study illustrates a negative correlation between the use of a ‘velco TA’ and progress for SEND pupils. Jones (1987) also supports this:

‘…the child may become ‘over-dependent on the supporter socially. academically and/or physically. Second, it can prevent class teachers from getting to know children well enough to plan for their inclusion in curriculum activities. Third… the general use of support can be of significant benefit to the rest of the class.’

(Thomas, Walker & Webb 1998: 32)

This further supports the importance of having an inclusive classroom as both Blatchford & Webster and Jones’ research illustrate the negative features of utilising support staff in an exclusory way e.g. a child with SEND having a constant 1-1 Learning Support Assistant (hereby LSA). Though it is important to differentiate for children, particularly those with additional needs when planning lessons, it is also important to create a sense of equality and belonging in the classroom.

Reflection: SBT1

SBT1 allowed me to take what I had learned in policy and observe how it was used in practice. Interestingly, despite the negative research on ‘velco TAs’, I found that this was in place for pupils with SEND. These pupils had very limited contact with the class teacher and although were encouraged to join group activities, it was not compulsory to do so. I also noticed that there was a lack of differentiation in the planning for pupils with SEND – in fact, it tended to be the LSA that would alter activities so that pupils with SEND were able to complete the task at hand e.g. dotting letters for pupils to trace rather than writing freehand.

There was occasionally differentiation in lesson planning for ‘high ability’ and ‘low ability’ pupils, including intervention groups, but this in itself is problematic. I am surprised that teachers today are still using the labels of high- and low-ability for children as young as 4 years old. I was also surprised to notice that the pupils in the group labelled ‘low ability’ typically worked in intervention groups with the TA or myself, rather than the qualified class teacher.

Budden suggests that grouping and labelling pupils by ability is ‘pedagogically unsavoury’ (Budden 2017). This is because it limits the expectations of some pupils whilst also pressurising other pupils to achieve high goals. There should be a middle grounding, then, where there is an extension task available for all pupils to access, whether it is completed individually, with additional support from the class teacher, or with additional steps put in place for those pupils that may benefit from them. This will ensure that both differentiation and inclusivity occur in the classroom.

How can we incorporate inclusivity in our practice?

There are a variety of strategies that we as practitioners can incorporate into our teaching to ensure it is more inclusive. Sue Mitchell and Karen Thorpe suggest SMARTA targets – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-scaled, Agreed targets – reflect the philosophy that ‘everyone involved plays a role in agreeing the targets’, emphasising a more holistic approach to teaching (Mitchell & Thorpe 2018: 44). Using SMARTA targets for all individuals will ensure an inclusive classroom as all pupils are aware of their own individual targets to achieve. It also ensures that all learning is personalised for each pupil, illustrating how differentiation and inclusion can work hand-in-hand.

Mitchell & Thorpe also suggest a variety of teaching strategies to engage with inclusivity. They suggest a variety of approaches for learning, including:

Task analysis; the process of breaking down tasks into achievable ‘chunks’;

Interactive/non-directive teaching; a responsive way of teaching that involves following the child’s lead;

Shaping; a teaching strategy which celebrates successful approximation of a target skill;

Errorless learning; which is useful for children who lack confidence or fear failure.

(Derived from Mitchell & Thorpe 2018: 45-48)

As Mitchell & Thorpe suggest, there are endless ways of supporting children in an inclusive way. It is important that teachers insure to use a variety of teaching strategies to attend to all pupils needs e.g. some pupils may not benefit from ‘task analysis’.

Final Thought

Overall, both inclusivity and differentiation are important for a holistic classroom environment since one cannot exist without the other. Effective teaching needs to ‘talk into account diversity’ (Corbett & Norwich 2005: 14) as well as inclusivity – learning should be personalised, but every child should feel a sense of belonging in the classroom. It is this holistic approach that I will carry forward in my own practice, and ensure every child is included in the classroom.

References

• Alexandra, D. (2019) Inclusion conference: Supporting the learning needs
• of pupils with SEND, University of Brighton, 9 January 2018
• Blatchford, W. & Webster, R. Challenging the Role and Deployment of Teaching Assistants in Mainstream Schools: The Impact on Schools. London: Institute of Education University of London
• Budden, B. (2017) ‘How to make mixed ability work: Let children take control of the lesson’. TES, April 2017 https://www.tes.com/news/how-make-mixed-ability-work-let-children-take-control-lesson. Date accessed 14/01/19
• Collett, C. (2018) Why include children with SEND? In C. Collett (Ed.) Disability and Inclusion in Early Years Education (pp. 9-25), London, Routledge.
• Corbett, J. & Norwich, B. Common or specialised pedagogy? In M. Nind et al. (Ed.) Curriculum and Pedagogy in Inclusive Education: Values and Practice (pp. 13-30), London, Routledge.
• Education in Action. Empowering Teachers: Empowering Learners http://www.inclusive-education-in-action.org/. Date accessed 07/01/19.
• Mitchell, S. & Thorpe, K. (2018) Assessment, early identification and individualised learning in C. Collett (Ed.) Disability and Inclusion in Early Years Education (pp. 26-56), London, Routledge.
• ‘Teachers’ Standards’. Department of Education, 2011 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665520/Teachers__Standards.pdf. Date accessed 15/01/19
• Thomas, G. Walker, D. & Webb, J. (1998) The Making of the Inclusive School, London, Routledge.

For this blog post, I will be focusing on the key finding of language and literacy. Bold Beginnings (hereby BB) reports that ‘the head teachers prioritised language and literacy as the cornerstones of learning. They ensured that sufficient time was given to developing children’s spoken language and teaching them to read and write.’ (BB 2017: 5)

Power of Reading

During SBT1, I have noticed that language and literacy is a clear priority during Reception. The pupils are taught phonics daily, and the school follows the Power of Reading scheme. This ensures that pupils have a new topic book at least once every two weeks. The children also have constant access to books from the book corner, and books are sometimes accessed during the end-of-day input. The classroom itself is covered with language and literacy e.g. displays, the alphabet, days of the week etc.

Despite this wealth of language and literacy, I am uncertain that it is being accessed appropriately by and for the children. BB lists ‘spoken language and listening to stories, poems and rhymes’ as an important feature of language and literacy. (BB 2017: 19) Stories, for example, tend to be used as a filler during the end-of-day input. Because stories are used at this time, there is little to no discussion about the language, imagery etc. The Power of Reading scheme allows the pupils to discuss and understand their topic book in depth, by re-telling the story through role play, creating story maps etc. This is good practice, but nonetheless it seems tainted by the fact that it is a whole-school scheme and therefore a form of assessment. Pupils should be exposed to books in a variety of ways e.g. reading for pleasure, reading images etc. but I feel as if stories are not being utilised in the best way possible.

For my own practice, I will ensure that books are accessed in these ways and that they are utilised for continuous provision e.g. when reading Goldilocks and the Three Bears I will ensure that there are non-fiction books on bears as well as fictional books.

Importance of ‘sounds and rhymes’

On top of this, I have yet to hear or see poems and nursery rhymes being used in the classroom. BB suggests that ‘nursery rhymes… help the children to become sensitive to the sounds and rhymes in words and gives them practice in enunciating words and sounds clearly.’ (BB 2017: 19) Considering the fact that the headteacher does prioritise ‘language and literacy as the cornerstones of learning’, it is interesting that there is a lack of nursery rhymes in Reception. If nursery rhymes help children ‘enunciate words and sounds clearly’, then they should be a dominant aspect of learning. For my own practice, I will ensure that I sing nursery rhymes with my pupils and encourage them to participate. I will ensure that nursery rhymes are played during choosing time and other intervals e.g. when tidying up.

Reading

Regarding reading, BB suggests that schools which devote a ‘considerable amount of time and effort, early on, to teaching reading systematically’ show good practice. (BB 2017: 23) My school places high importance on reading and the ability to blend, as illustrated in their use of the Read, Write, Inc. scheme. Pupils are taught phonics daily and are encouraged to blend both familiar and unfamiliar words (e.g. through nonsense words). Nonetheless, I would argue that there is not a ‘considerable amount of time’ for teaching how to read systematically. There is a focus on pace during phonics and sounds are not revisited – if a pupil is ill, for example, they just carry on with the new sound which is being taught.

On top of this, some pupils are not developmentally ready for reading systematically i.e. they may not know all their single sounds yet. In this case, some aspects of phonics teaching are not understood. This is because pupils are assessed for phonics and reading ability frequently throughout the year, and so there is no time to revisit some sounds for blending. The class teachers do allow pupils to start reading at different times. As BB suggests, successful systematic reading must occur ‘once children are confident in their decoding’. Some pupils have started to take reading books home because they know all their single sounds and can blend confidently, whereas others have not. Even so, the class teachers are aware that all pupils are expected to be reading and blending by the end of the Reception year, so there is some aspect of assessment involved which motivates the pace of learning. For my own practice, I will ensure that the pupils have plenty of time for developing their reading and blending skills.

References

• Her Majesty’s chief Inspector (2017). Bold Beginnings: The Reception curriculum in a sample of good and outstanding primary schools, London, HMSO.

The stimulus

Our current topic book is Little Red Riding Hood. I decided to use the book as a stimulus for learning and linked it with Computing. I used programmable toys (Bee Bots) to deepen the pupils understanding of the book as well as their understanding of technology. I chose to work with Bee Bots because ‘during the preschool years… children become increasingly able to think about routines and sequences.’ (Plowman 2016: 98) Bee Bots allow the children to focus on this concept of routine and sequence as Bee Bots rely on algorithms; a sequence. The focus of the activity was to understand the concept of algorithms by deepening the pupils understanding of positional language.

The activity

The activity consisted of programming the Bee Bot to follow the path in the ‘forest’ to get to Grandma. The pupils could choose which character they would like to be – Little Red Riding Hood, the Big Bad Wolf, or the Woodcutter. Each Bee Bot represented these characters and I took small groups of 4-5 pupils, due to the limited amount of working Bee Bots and the classroom space. Plowman suggests that ‘technology should be integrated into playroom practice so that it relates to other aspects of the early years curriculum.’ (Plowman 2016: 106) By using the Bee Bots in this cross-curricular way, the pupils can see that technology can be used not only for leisure, but also for educational purposes.

Before the activity, I discovered that the children had little-to-no understanding of correct positional language. To counteract this, I ensured to model the correct use of positional language with visual cues (arrows). These visual cues were accessible throughout the whole activity.

The response

The children responded to the activity and the technology well. They were excited to get stuck in as they were all familiar with the story and found it intriguing to explore the book in a new, unfamiliar way. Some pupils recognised the Bee Bot from nursery but almost all pupils had little understanding of how to move the Bee Bot correctly. Nonetheless, they were able to do so after I had modelled how to use the Bee Bot.

Some pupils continued to struggle, so I modelled this again, encouraging them to tell me the instructions as to which direction to move next. As Plowman suggests, pupils may struggle with ‘the operational features of certain technologies but [are] capable of meaningful interaction if they benefit from guidance.’ (Plowman 2016: 98) Just become some technologies are difficult, doesn’t mean that pupils cannot achieve ‘meaningful interaction’. In fact, children should be encouraged to use technology that is unfamiliar and new as it allows them deepen their understanding of the world around them.

Strategies for supporting learning

I used a variety of strategies to support the pupil’s learning. I ensured that I repetitively used the positional language so that pupils could become familiar with it. I sat with the pupils during the activity and commented on their direction e.g. ‘I can see you turned left – be careful, the wolf is close by!’ This encouraged the pupils to use the positional language themselves. I also used lots of specific praise and encouragement, especially for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (hereby SEND) and ‘low ability’ pupils. This encouraged the pupils to keep trying to reach their goal. By having a learning objective and goal for this activity, the learning had a purpose i.e. to save Grandma from the Wolf. This ensured pupils were engaging with the task at hand.

Another strategy I used was to ensure that my approach was multi-sensory – by using Bee Bots that not only move, but make sound, the pupils were engaging with their auditory and visual senses. I also ensured that the characters pinned to the Bee Bot were textured e.g. Little Red Riding Hood’s cloak was soft so that pupils could engage with the activity via touch as I am aware that some pupils enjoy sensory objects. I built the learning on the pupils’ interests (i.e. enjoying sound, touch), which is probably why they engaged so well with the activity.

Overall, the activity was successful. All pupils were able to achieve the learning objective – to move the Bee Bot using its buttons – and some pupils were even able to recognise the new positional language I introduced to them. The pupils were self-reflective in their learning during the plenary and were able to remind me of their learning objectives and whether they completed this.

References

• Plowman L. (2016) Learning technology at home and preschool. In N. Rushby & D. Surry (Ed.) Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology (pp. 96-112), Chichester, Wiley.

Challenges to safeguarding children

It is essential that all staff have an ‘awareness of safeguarding issues that can put children at risk of harm.’ (Department for Education, hereby DfE, 2015: 15) This is not restricted to classroom teachers, but anyone that has potential contact with children on a school’s premises. There are four main challenges to safeguarding children:

1. Physical abuse
2. Emotional abuse
3. Sexual abuse
4. Neglect

Neglect

Neglect is the most common form of child abuse, though one of the most difficult to identify. (Radford, L. et al 2011) Neglect is defined as ‘the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs.’ (DfE 2018: 15) Neglect can manifest in a variety of ways, for example, a parent or carer failing to provide food. I have experienced countless situations where a child has entered school without eating breakfast or lacking sleep, which causes the child to be unable to concentrate on learning. Neglect does not only refer to a parent or carer being unresponsive or neglecting a child’s basic physical needs, but their emotional needs, too. Neglect and emotional abuse, then, go hand-in-hand as challenges regarding the safeguarding of children.

Emotional Abuse

Emotional abuse can be defined as ‘the persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and adverse effects on the child’s emotional development.’ (DfE 2018: 14) Similar to neglect, emotional abuse cannot be classified as one specific mistreatment – this type of abuse can come under ‘making fun’ of a child or bullying them, making a child feel worthless or unloved, or not allowing a child opportunities to express their views. (DfE 2018: 14) Emotional abuse is built up of many different mistreatments.

Sadly, I have had experience of a child that appeared to be experiencing emotional abuse. For example, when working on phonics, the child felt unable to correct his spelling errors because he was ‘stupid’ and ‘sh*t’. This is not the language I expected to hear from a three-year-old, but it hits home the reality that emotional abuse can occur to any child of any age. It is important, then, for teachers to put in place strategies to address the challenges regarding safeguarding children.

What strategies could be used as teachers to address these challenges?

In order to put in place strategies to address these challenges – and others – safeguarding must focus on prevention. There are four key steps to follow to identify and respond appropriately to possible signs of abuse and/or neglect:

1. Be alert;
2. Question behaviours;
3. Ask for help;
4. Refer.

It may not always be necessary to follow the stages sequentially, though it is useful for all practitioners to keep these stages in mind when dealing with behaviours. For example, a child that doesn’t eat breakfast one morning may not be a case of neglect, but simply that the parent or carer were in a rush that particular day. It is important to constantly be alert for possible signs of abuse and/or neglect, and not to be afraid to ask for help if you are uncertain about a particular incident or child.

Safeguarding should follow two basic principles; it should always be child-centred and co-ordinated, as it is everyone’s responsibility. In regards to safeguarding being child-centred, the child must always be the main focus when making decisions regarding their safety and their lives. (DfE 2018: 9) This child-centred approach allows the child to have agency in their life despite any challenges regarding abuse and/or neglect. By using this strategy of putting the child’s safety first, practitioners can provide a ‘safe and stimulating environment for pupils, rooted in mutual respect.’ (Teachers’ Standards, hereby TS, 2011: 1)

Safeguarding as a co-ordinated process refers to the fact that a child’s safety is of upmost important to all those involved in the child’s life. The Teachers’ Standards refers to the need to ‘safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions’. (TS 2011: Part 2) This illustrates that not only is this co-ordinated strategy essential for the safeguarding of children, but it is also a legal government requirement.

It is important that schools globally take into consideration these prevention strategies when creating their own steps for safeguarding. Personally, I will ensure that my own classroom has a child-centred and co-ordinated approach to safeguarding and will engage with preventing any mistreatment. I believe it is crucial for children to be aware of exactly what abuse and neglect is, so this would be discussed early in the school year in order to build a safe environment for the children. These discussions would be open and I would encourage the children to ask questions. The children would know that the classroom is a safe space where they can discuss any issues that are bothering them, either within or outside school.

References 

• Department for Education (2018) Keeping children safe in education, London, HMSO.
• Department for Education (2011) Teachers’ Standards, London, HMSO.
• HM Government (2018) Working Together to Safeguard Children, London, HMSO.
• Radford, L. et al. (2011) Child abuse and neglect in the UK today, London, NSPCC.
• Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board (2018) Referring Safeguarding Concerns about Children, Rotherham, MASH.