When reflecting upon what an inclusive classroom is, your mind normally jumps to the inclusion of learners with Special Educational Needs and/or Disability (SEND) and how their needs are being met in a way that minimizes barriers to whole class participation. Although this, of course, is an imperative element to the inclusive classroom, it doesn’t stop there.

The Department for Education’s (DfE) Teachers’ Standard 5 states that teachers must ‘adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils’. Therefore, it is important to remember that, as seen in the Index for Inclusion School Guidelines, the reduction of barriers to learning and participation should be made for all pupils, not only those with impairments or SEND.

Within education, the terms ‘inclusion’, ‘diversity’ and ‘difference’ can take on many denotations. In this blog, they are discussed within the context of whole class differentiated developmental stages.

(Chen, 2017)

During my time on School Based Training 1 (SBT1), I was training in what is called a ‘vertically grouped’ classroom – where I was teaching both years 1 and 2 simultaneously. To which my first response was:

“How will I be able to accommodate lessons appropriate to both the curriculum guidelines at once, without excluding one year or the other?”

Inclusion within school is something I have always been passionate about achieving and since completing my BA Degree on ‘SEND and Inclusion Studies’ I have felt it has been in the forefront of any planning and classroom thinking I have done. Hence, it was important for me to research and carefully consider the best approaches that this new challenge of teaching a mixed year group class may present.

With the limitations to this classroom approach in mind, I quickly began to see how, in this school, vertically grouped years really did work in the best interest of the learners. By viewing the differences between the pupils as resources to support learning, rather than as problems to be overcome. This child-centred approach (IBE, 2019) I was witnessing had emphasis on the overall development of the pupils rather than solely on their academic achievements. The classes were mixed throughout most of the day, accessing the same input with differentiated tasks/activities set afterwards, for all subjects’ bar Phonics.

Mixed, whole class input allows for an effective use of ‘Talk Partners’ – a strategy that teachers can use for Assessment for Learning (AfL). Using the teacher’s professional judgement, learners are paired Yr1-Yr2, in ways that are vertically beneficial for both of their needs.

(TES, 2019)

This use of inclusive group work was shown to have a range of benefits for the learners. From promoting increased social interactions between different groups (stages, backgrounds, interests etc.) of pupils to developing the skills of high-ability pupils who were key to effective mixed-ability group functioning – allowing all learners to access tasks at a higher level. This has an immediate and obvious relay of enhancing self-esteem and motivation within the classroom for learners at all developmental stages.

A limitation to the inclusivity of vertically grouped classrooms was seen when ‘age appropriate’ tasks took place. For example, in Maths, the year 2 curriculum differs enough from year 1 to need a classroom divide. This is something I observed the class teacher in a constant struggle with when planning for Maths lessons. Needing to cater for both year groups, and then the differentiations within those year groups, seemed to be a challenge we faced planning for each session. As a result, teachers tend to have to teach input at a whole class level to an ‘imaginary average’ (HMI, 1978), which is too challenging for lower attainers and not challenging and therefore disengaging to the higher attainers.

This is where it really comes down to the way in which teachers do things, rather than what they do. Florian, (2017) argues that teachers are adept at responsiveness to each individual need within the process of teaching and so the organisation of learner support through the input is essential to ensure all pupils can access the information. Due to this, along with the age range of the learners, whole class input is kept short and as interactive as possible so that the teacher can use her knowledge and skills to differentiate, support and challenge the pupils appropriately during task work.

This approach allows for choice participation, rather than setting work for pupils based solely on teacher judgment, learners can choose from a range of differentiated lesson options, produced based on the knowledge of pupils in their class – their interests, needs and abilities. These individual needs are then met without pre-determining or limiting learning that may be possible and support through teacher and peer ‘scaffolding’ (Wood et al., 1976) can be accessed wherever necessary. This meant that any year 1 pupils that were able to access more challenging year 2 work were able to do so by choice (or with a bit of encouragement). As well as year 2 pupils still working at a year 1 curriculum in areas, were able to do so without being excluded from the task – or even the classroom!

(Engage, 2018)

I believe that this kind of inclusive classroom environment enables teachers and learners to adopt what Dr. Dweck (2017) pinpointed as a ‘Growth Mindset’. Creating an environment where we are thinking about learning as a shared activity for all pupils to develop different knowledge, skills and experiences, encouraging comfort in trial and improvement and striving for higher attainment regardless of their learner ‘diversity’ or ‘difference’.

The practice of inclusive education varies widely and coexists with the practices of those who disagree or resist the idea claiming it will disrupt the education of others. However, for myself, I consider a learner’s age, ability, special and/or additional need or developmental level, as aspects of their identities that I won’t let pre-judge their attainment possibilities. I will continue my journey as a teacher, striving for an inclusive classroom for all, valuing pupil diversity and differences, supporting all learners and continuing my professional development by reminding myself that ‘inclusion is a response to all learner diversity’. (EiA, 2014)

References

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, London:  Ballantine Books.

Engage. (2018). How to Engage Teams with a Growth Mindset. [Online]. Available at: https://www.achievers.com/blog/2018/09/how-to-engage-teams-with-a-growth-mindset/ > [Accessed 12/01/19].

Education In Action. (2014). Empowering Teachers: Empowering Learners. [Online]. Available at: http://www.inclusive-education-in-action.org/ [Accessed 12/01/19].

Florian, L. (2017). Prof. Lani Florian – Inclusive Pedagogy. [YouTube]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeeDwzZwTj8 [Accessed 12/01/19]

HM Inspectors of Schools. (1978). Primary Education in England. [Online]. Available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/hmi-primary/hmi-primary.html [Accessed 13/01/19].

International Bureau of Education. (2019). Child-centred approach. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/glossary-curriculum-terminology/c/child-centred-approach [Accessed 12/01/19].

Wood, D. Bruner, J. Ross, G. (1976). THE ROLE OF TUTORING IN PROBLEM SOLVING. [Online]. Available at: https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/topics/scaffolding [Accessed 13/01/19].

‘At the heart of the educational process lies the child’. An observation coined in the 1967 Plowden Report (Blackstone, 1967) that is still prevalent in the empirical research into cognitive development by many affluent academics today. Within the 2015 report ‘Children’s Cognitive Development and Learning’, researcher Usha Goswami draws upon and concludes a variety of aspects that can affect a child’s cognitive development and how these may facilitate learning in educational settings. (2015)

The importance of language, and how it is a ‘crucial’ aspect of child development is highlighted throughout Goswami’s report. (2015, p25) During my time in School-Based Training 1 (SBT1) I observed how the way in which teachers communication with children have these crucial influences on their learning, whether it be through memory, understanding or motivation. (Goswami, 2015, p25) This was something the class teacher was very thorough about in her pedagogic approach and something I was keen to adopt quickly for my continued professional development (CPD).

(teachingideas, 2015)

During an English lesson, focusing on the ‘Traction Man’ by Mini Grey, the pupils’ objective was to produce a whole class story map to use as a chronological guide for writing their own independent story and ultimately changing the ending. First, the story was read through from start to finish a few times, stopping and discussing at important stages. The pupils were then asked to think about how the story could have ended differently. By using lolly sticks (with the pupil’s names on) the teacher modelled the beginning of their story using all the learners’ new ideas, whilst giving only positive feedback and celebrating their creative vocabulary which, in turn encouraged them to be more adventurous. Here, the teacher used Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’ (1978) to assess how far the learners could go under the guidance of herself, using a ‘thumbs up/thumbs down’ to assess whether the pupils understood the task. We then knew which learners still needed further ‘scaffolding’ with their ideas and were able to support them appropriately.

This approach is commonly known as ‘Talk for Writing’ and can be explained by Pie Corbett himself here:

By implementing Pie Corbett’s ‘Talk for Writing’ approach, the pupil’s writing then became more innovative, having had the opportunity to discuss their ideas first. This supports Goswami’s belief that “learning relies on what is being said around them” (2015, p.13), allowing learners to ‘magpie’ new vocabulary and descriptive and inquisitive language from both their peers during ‘Talk Partner’ discussions and their teachers during pupil-teacher or whole class interaction. This was also seen effectively using mid-task plenaries. Whilst circulating the room, offering verbal-feedback and marking the learner’s work with them, the teacher would pick up on exciting vocabulary that pupils used and share it with the whole class, both defining what it meant and using it in a contextual sentence.

Although it is argued that the Talk for Writing’ approach is too structured and therefore is ‘too much help’ resulting in ‘inflated progess’ (chowatson, in tes, 2017), I could see how the approach was having a positive impact on the cognitive development of the class I was in.

(singteach, 2019)

This use of ‘scaffold’ modelling is seen considerably within primary education, and especially within Key Stage 1 (KS1). This is whenever a teacher demonstrates a concept for a student; that teacher is modelling. (Haston, 2007) It is another aspect of cognitive development concluded by Goswami, where she states that “children think and reason largely in the same ways as adults. However, they lack experience, and they are still developing important metacognitive and executive function skills”. (2015, p25) The use of modelling enables a child to understand and observe what the outcome may/will look like and the process to get there by ‘imitating’. (Meltzoff and Moore, 1983)

When used in my SBT1 classroom, modelling allowed for a growth in confidence among the learners, to then tackle things independently with the clarity of an end goal. It also begins to make room for, as Goswami describes, “children to develop self-reflective and self-regulatory skills” (2015) and invites a ‘trial and improvement’ approach to new things, with ‘scaffolding’ from a ‘more knowledgeable other’ (Vygotsky, 1978) whether that then be a teacher or a fellow pupil.

On reflection, the two conclusions I have discussed have been successfully implemented in my experience in SBT1. I have seen how through the use of various strategies, the criticality of language development and the successful use of modelling and/or scaffolding, are central aspects of child development, thinking and learning in the primary years. However, I am aware that these approaches will differ, in being context-specific for the developmental level/KS of each individual learner.

References

Blackstone, T. (1967). The Plowden Report. [Online]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/588641?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 14/01/19]

Goswami, U. (2015). Child Development. [Online]. Available at: https://www.cne.psychol.cam.ac.uk/pdfs/publication-pdfs/Primary_Review_2-1a_report_CogDevLearn_Goswami-Bryant_2007.pdf [Accessed 14/01/19]

Haston, W. (2007). Teacher Modeling as an Effective Teaching Strategy. [Online]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4127130?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 14/01/19]

Meltzoff, A. Moore, K. (1983). Newborn Infants Imitate Adult Facial Features. [Online]. Available at: http://ilabs.washington.edu/meltzoff/pdf/83Meltzoff_Moore_ChildDev.pdf [Accessed 14/01/19]

TES. (2017). Talk for Writing – Thoughts? [Online]. Available at: https://community.tes.com/threads/talk-for-writing-thoughts.774335/ [Accessed 14/01/19]

‘Computational thinking’ is a skill children must be taught if they are to be ready for the workplace and able to participate effectively in this digital world.

(Peyton-Jones, in Berry, 2013)

The world is becoming increasingly technologically driven. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, the necessity to educate children in computing, preparing them to not only acquire the skills of using ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), but to develop an understanding of computer science is paramount. This is set to allow children access to maximise their potentials both safely and efficiently in the continuity of technological advances.

Because of this, it is essential as a training teacher to understand the how’s and why’s of teaching computing. In sight of this, I was set a task to research, plan and teach an activity based lesson with my year 1/2 class focusing mainly on the National Curriculum (NC) area of computing science.

(UK Assignment Club, 2019)

I began my research by reading through the NC (DfE, 2013) and finding out what exactly it is that children of 5 to 7-years-old should be learning at this stage. Coming across terminology such as ‘debugging’ and ‘algorithms’, were words I was hardly sure I was familiar with myself, so after educating myself, I began to think about how I could introduce them in an age-appropriate way.

• Algorithm – Algorithms are step by step instructions to get something done or the set of rules describing how something works. A recipe, or a set of dance steps, or the storyboard for an animation are algorithms. (Berry, 2014)

Learn more >

• De-bugging – Removing mistakes or ‘bugs’ from your programme. (BBC, 2019)

Learn more >

After speaking with the class teacher, we decided that because this would be the children’s first re-introduction since Reception and first formal learning of programming, that an easily accessible activity would see best fit. From this I planned a session using ‘BeeBots’ (programmable toys), which from experience in workshops, seems to be an engaging and successful way to introduce computing science to this age group.

(Bee-Bots, 2018)

I chose for these sessions to be small, with only four pupils at a time to ensure every child was able to have a go at programming their Beebot as I believed this is the most effective way for the children to understand the process. I began my first session with four year 2 pupils by asking them what they knew about what I was holding up (a Beebot). This allowed me to assess what they already knew about computing, something I could come back to at the end and compare with to see what they have learned (Assessment for Learning). It was clear to me that all the children understood and were confident with their directions (left, right, forwards, backwards) and they were confident in getting straight to the task.

The learning objective for my short session linked with the topic the children were focusing on at the time. Knowing that they were looking at the first solo female flight to Australia I located the big world maps out of the resources cupboard and used this as a start and finish for them to instruct their Beebots. Once the children had located both the UK and Australia (post-it-noting their location) we discussed how each of us would get our Beebot from A to B. As I could see, the children were very excited and keen to see if their ideas would work, so I let them begin. The children were in two sets of pairs so I could closely monitor their ideas and process and use any as a plenary. Much to my assumptions, it wasn’t long before one of the pairs found that their Beebot was facing too far the wrong way and although they had programmed and told their Beebot to turn around, it wouldn’t!

I bought the pairs together and we began to discuss reasons why the Beebot wasn’t doing as it was told. One child, who seems to have had more experience with programming raised his hand and stated:

“If you make a mistake you have to clear it all and start again!”

This was a brilliant answer which then allowed me to explain exactly how the programming system worked, introducing the new terminology.

We agreed that problem solving/trial and error was a very important part of this activity and came to the conclusion that, in fact, it didn’t matter if we made a mistake because we knew how to fix it! To which the children thoroughly enjoyed knowing. After this, we looked at different ways we could get from A to B, going through various countries the children have been to and advanced the activity further by allocating one child a whiteboard to jot down the sequence of instructions the other child made and vise versa.

The children were so eager to tell their friends back in the classroom about what they had learned, and through peer-teaching, the following day’s activity session we found ourselves on the laptops using a similar programming website: code.org. to which some of the children excelled in, gathering team points for each time someone correctly used the new terminology to explain what had happened. The peer and teacher prompting and questions was brilliant to watch and to be a part of as the children thoroughly enjoyed knowing that they were the ones cracking the codes and fixing the problems!

References

BBC. (2018). What is an Algorithm? [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/articles/z3whpv4 [Accessed 01/11/19].

BBC. (2018). What is debugging? [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/articles/ztkx6sg [Accessed 01/11/19].

Berry, M. (2013). Computing in the National Curriculum: A Guide for Primary Teachers.Bedford: Computing at School. [Online]. Available at: https://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/CASPrimaryComputing.pdf [Accessed 01/11/18].

TTS. (2018). Bee-Bot – a teacher’s guide. [Online]. Available at: https://www.tts-group.co.uk/blog/2018/07/18/bee-bot-a-teachers-guide.html [Accessed 01/11/18].

One of, if not the most important role a teacher must play in a child’s life is to protect and prevent their pupils from harm. Teachers are both morally and legally responsible for providing children with a safe and simulating learning environment. (TS1a) (DfE, 2013) Teachers must defend and advocate a child’s right to be protected from violence, abuse and neglect, as well as their right to a good standard of education. (UNICEF, 2010)

(Leicester Safeguarding Children Board, 2019)

Put perfectly by UNICEF (2018) teachers must be ‘effective Children’s Champions‘, and to do this, must ensure that they are well-informed, sufficiently trained and vigilant in the process of safeguarding children. In addition to raising awareness and educating children on how to recognize and report inappropriate or abusive behaviour.

It is no secret that safeguarding children is a challenging process with a number of issues. This blog will highlight and briefly discuss just two of these issues and begin to investigate strategies in which these barriers can be broken.

The first safeguarding issue I want to address is the importance of early intervention when recognizing a child may be being abused (or maltreated) physically, emotionally, sexually or neglectfully, and the process you should take once your concern is raised. This issue comes as a result of many cases over the years, where the apparent lack of intuition or attentiveness of teachers (along with other multi-agency workers), have failed to identify signs and symptoms of child abuse and/or unsuccessfully kept records of concerns, ending in serious case reviews. In 2011, the NSPCC published the first ever UK-wide study of child maltreatment, finding that a staggering 1 in 5 children have experienced severe maltreatment (NSPCC, 2011). This highlights the absolute necessity of sufficient knowledge and training on the safeguarding and well-being of children within education.

As a teacher, or any member of staff in a school setting, it may be difficult to know when it is appropriate to raise or record a concern, in the case of being ‘too’ vigilant and raising a concern to which wasn’t necessary. When, in reality, no concern is ill-advised if the correct responses are implemented. If you, as a practitioner, notice a bruise or similar on a child and know this could well be evidence of them falling in the playground – asking that child in a non-threatening, calm manor and taking note will have no harm done. Any serious concerns must be confidentially discussed with your school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead or, if the child is in immediate danger, taken straight to the police.

Along with your school setting’s policies and procedures, as highlighted in the Government document ‘What to do if you’re worried a child is being abused‘, the most effective process to safeguarding children is as follows:

Remember, noticing small things such as cuts or bruises and subtle behaviour changes, must be privately recorded – this is invaluable!

Please see for more guidance and advice:

Safeguarding and Child Protection in Schools

Keeping Children Safe in Education

What to do if you’re worried a child is being abused.

The other issue has only become prominent over the past couple of decades. With technology advancing each day, safeguarding children has extended to the online safety of pupils, as a direct result of the risks these new opportunities create. (Livingstone et al., 2011)

Keeping Children Safe in Education highlights the ‘breadth’ of issues online safety faces, which they have categorised into three main areas:

• Content

• Contact

• Conduct

Focusing specifically on the area of Contact – this is an area that can see the child as a ‘participant’ in adult-initiated activity and can include harassment (stalking), online grooming, sexual abuse on meeting strangers and personal data misuse. (Livingstone et al, 2015)

An effective approach to online safety in schools can protect, educate and empower children to use technology. Throughout my time working in schools, I have witnessed first-hand the importance of digital literacy for children. The internet allows children to play, learn, create and connect with each other, and if educated to use correctly and safely, opens up a world of possibilities. But how can you make sure children are staying safe online?

It is often through no fault of their own that children overshare personal data, and so the vitality of educating children on the dangers of sharing information on the internet is paramount. And it is not enough to merely warn and restrict internet use. The UK council for Child Internet Safety highlighted the importance of using lesson time to imbed digital literacy. (UKCCIS, 2017) It is therefore vital that teachers are up to date with technological advances – which can be supported through the various online websites set out to do just this.

The NSPCC’s collaboration with O2 ‘Share Aware’ is a great platform for educating children on how to be safe online.

For further information and guidance on protecting children online, in all areas, please see:

Online Safety – NSPCC

Share Aware – NSPCC 

Professionals Online Safety Helpline

Children’s online activities, risks and safety

In response to either of the issues discussed, following the school’s procedure and keeping within the DfE’s safeguarding guidelines is essential. In addition to knowing who the designated safeguarding lead in your school, as they are your first port of call.

References

DeNationalTV. (2015). Keeping Children Safe Online: NSPCC. [online], YouTube. Available at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WingwgvcYvI [Acessed: 02/10/18].

Department for Education. (2018). Keeping Children Safe in Education. [online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741314/Keeping_Children_Safe_in_Education__3_September_2018_14.09.18.pdf [Accessed 02/10/18].

Department for Education. (2013). Teachers’ Standards Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. [online]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665520/Teachers__Standards.pdf [Accessed: 02/10/18].

GOV.UK. (2015). What to do if you’re worried a child is being abused. Advice for practitioners. [online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/419604/What_to_do_if_you_re_worried_a_child_is_being_abused.pdf [Accessed: 02/10/18].

Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Gorzig, A. and Olafsson, K.  (2011) EU Kids Online: final report 2011, London: LSE. [online]. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45490/1/EU%20Kids%20Online%20final%20report%202011%28lsero%29.pdf [Accessed:02/10/18].

NSPCC. (2011). Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK Today. [online]. Available at: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/pre-2013/child-abuse-neglect-uk-today/ [Accessed 02/10/18].

NSPCC. (2018). Online Safety. [online]. Available at: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/online-safety/ [Accessed 02/10/18].

NSPCC. (2018). Safeguarding and Child Protection in Schools. [online]. Available at: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/safeguarding-child-protection-schools/ [Accessed: 02/10/18].

NSPCC. (2018). Share Aware. [online]. Available at: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/share-aware/ [Accessed: 02/10/18].

UK Safer Internet Centre. (2018). Professional Online Safety Helpline. [online]. Available at: https://www.saferinternet.org.uk/professionals-online-safety-helpline [Accessed: 02/10/18].

UKCCIS Evidence Group. (2017) Children’s online activities, risks and safety, London: LSE. [online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/650933/Literature_Review_Final_October_2017.pdf [Accessed: 02/10/18].

UNICEF. (2010). A Summary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [online]. Available at: https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_summary-1.pdf?_ga=2.80327711.905490719.1538648834-350297456.1538648834 [Accessed: 02/10/18].

UNICEF. (2018). Children’s Champion Network. [online]. Available at: https://www.unicef.org.uk/campaign-with-us/become-a-unicef-uk-childrens-champion/ [Accessed: 02/10/18].