The DfE (2014) believe inclusion within schools should include: high expectations of all pupils; work planned for all children; an appropriate range of ambitious assessment criteria; considerations of the needs of all pupils. These statements are supported by the SEND code of practice (DfE, 2015) which provides advice and support for schools, and other associated organisations, comprising strategies to include and support SEND pupils within education. Inclusion, however, is a term that can be interpreted and defined in different ways as practitioners have their own values and beliefs which can influence their ideas around inclusion, diversity and difference (Fredrickson and Cline, 2015; Tussler and Robinson, 2015; Florian and Beaton, 2017). It is important to recognise that inclusion does not just encompass SEND children but is applicable to all children within the classroom (Tussler and Robinson, 2015). I believe that a learning environment should be inclusive of all children, where they feel safe and can access good quality education (Florian and Beaton, 2017). I also believe the learning environment should not be too overwhelming for pupils in relation to the layout and content of the class (Doppelt and Schunn, 2008; Barrett, et al, 2012). Displays should provide children with useful information and resources which are easy to read and relevant to their learning journey (ibid). Furthermore, I believe that teachers should hold high expectations of all pupils and should value learner diversity, knowing children’s strengths and planning in lessons or activities where these can be highlighted (Florian, 2008; Hannell, 2008; Tussler and Robinson, 2015; Florian and Beaton, 2017).

 (Think Inclusive, 2017)

Florian and Beaton (2017) believe that learners should be active participants within education. They believe that teachers need to listen to pupil voice to inform planning of future lessons and facilitate further learning (ibid). To include all children within my lessons I provided opportunities, particularly within Mathematics lessons, for children to choose activities they felt comfortable with (one, two or three chilies). I ensured I explained to the children that if they were finding the activity too easy or too hard, they should try the next level up or down. This approach worked well in my classroom as the children understood my high expectations, knowing that if they did not try to challenge themselves, I would recognise this when marking their work and discuss this with them. However, it is an approach that may not work in all classrooms without high expectations of all children. I believe this teaching approach enables children to feel like active participants who are responsible for their learning (Hannell, 2008; Fisher, 2012). I also believe that this approach reduced stereotypes within the classroom, enabling children to have differentiated activities whilst also not placing a particular attainment on groups of children (Florian, 2008; Florian and Beaton, 2017). I believe that teachers need to trust children to make their own choices around their learning which can begin to create autonomous learners, within an environment that values diversity and difference (ibid).

(Think Inclusive, 2017)

Tussler and Robinson (2015) believe that to be inclusive teachers need to be reflective, flexible and adaptable. They suggest that the term inclusion can cause panic and concern for many practitioners who have not received training on supporting SEND, PP and EAL children within their classrooms (ibid). Tussler and Robinson (2015) theorise two models around inclusion, the functional model and the transactional model. The functional model focuses on what the learners cannot do and their SEND needs, highlighting differences and impairments (ibid). The transactional model focuses on high expectations of all learners, considering the impact that the learning environment could have on their learning (Doppelt and Schunn, 2008; Barrett, et al, 2012; Tussler and Robinson, 2015). Within SBT1 the school values and beliefs followed the transactional model. The majority of SEND, EAL and PP children were included within classrooms, some being further supported by specialist staff within the class. Tussler and Robinson (2015) and Reid (2013) believe that to enable inclusion there needs to be a team approach where children are provided with support where necessary and are not separated from other children within the classroom. Blatchford and Webster (2012) support this argument suggesting that deployment of support staff can sometimes be ineffective resulting in pupil reliance on the teaching assistant which can in turn negatively impact pupil progress. Therefore, children should be working with specialist staff members focusing on class integration and task completion (Webster and Blatchford, 2012; Webster et al, 2013; Saddler, 2014).  All staff within SBT1 worked together, providing specific intervention support where necessary. However, although specific support was given these sessions were placed within PE and Music lessons. As a result, the children that were given this extra support were not able to be involved in these foundation subjects which could limit the development of transferable skills such as team work and creativity (Bleazby, 2015; Duncombe et al, 2015; Breslin, 2016).

In conclusion, teachers are supported by the National Curriculum (DfE, 2014) and SEND Code of Practice (DfE, 2015) to create an inclusive learning environment, where they are aware of pupil’s differences. Within my own practice I will continue to hold high expectations of all pupils and ensure children are active participants within the classroom, through a consideration of pupil voice on the activities provided (Florian, 2008; Florian and Beaton, 2017). I will also ensure that I deploy any staff effectively within my classroom, working with the additional needs’ children in the class myself, rather than relying on a teaching assistant, to make the most impact on the children’s learning as possible and to focus on whole class inclusivity (Webster and Blatchford, 2012; Saddler, 2014; Tussler and Robinson, 2015). Finally, I will consider when in the day I am providing children with extra support, making sure to provide this in day-to-day lessons rather than restricting children’s opportunities to access all of the curriculum as I believe children can develop skills transferable skills from foundation subjects which can support their progress in core subjects such as English and Mathematics (Bleazby, 2015; Duncombe et al, 2015; Breslin, 2016).

References:

Barett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J. and Kobbacy, K. (2012) “A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning”, in Building and Environment, Vol 59, p678-689.

Breslin, T. (2016) Subject hierarchies and the purpose of learning – Time to press re-set?, [online] BERA, Available: <https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/subject-hierarchies-and-the-purpose-of-learning-time-to-press-re-set> [Accessed: 23/11/18].

Bleazby, J. (2015) “Why some school subjects have a high status than others: The epistemology of the traditional curriculum hierarchy”, in Oxford Review of Education, Vol 41 (5), p671-689.

Department for Education (2014) National curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4, London: DfE, Available: <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4#inclusion> [Accessed: 31/12/18].

Department for Education (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years, London: DfE, Available: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398815/SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf> [Accessed: 31/12/18].

Doppelt, Y. and Schunn, C.D. (2008) “Identifying students’ perceptions of the important classroom features affecting learning aspects of a design-based learning environment”, in Learning Environments Research, Vol 11 (3), p195-209.

Duncombe, R., Cole, L. and Harris, J. (2015) “Strengthening ‘the foundations’ of the primary school curriculum”, in International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, Vol 46 (1), p76-88.

Fisher, H. (2012) “Progressing towards a model of intrinsic inclusion in a mainstream primary school: a SENCO’s experience, in International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol 16 (12), p1273-1293.

Florian, L. (2008) “INCLUSION: Special or inclusive education: future trends”, in British Journal Special Education, Vol 35 (4), p202-208.

Florian, L. and Beaton, M. (2017) “Inclusive pedagogy in action: getting it right for every child”, in International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol 22 (8), p870-884.

Fredrickson, N. and Cline, T. (2015) Special Educational Needs, Inclusion and Diversity, (Third Edition), Berkshire: Open University Press.

Hannell, G. (2008) Success with inclusion: 1001 teaching strategies and activities that really work, London: David Fulton Publishers.

Reid, G. (2013) Dyslexia and Inclusion: Classroom approaches for assessment, teaching and learning, (Second Edition), Oxon: Routledge.

Think Inclusion (2017) The case for inclusive education, [online], Available: <https://www.thinkinclusive.us/inclusive-education-sabrina/> [Accessed: 13/01/19].

Tussler, S. and Robinson, D. (2015) Inclusive practice in the primary school: A guide for teachers, London: SAGE.

Saddler, H. (2014) “Researching the influence of teaching assistants on the learning of pupils identified with special educational needs in mainstream primary schools: exploring social inclusion, in Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Vol 14 (3), p145-152.

Webster, R. and Blatchford, P. (2012) ‘Supporting learning? How effective are teaching assistants?’, in Adey, P. and Dillon, J. (Ed) Bad Education: Debunking educational myths, Maidenhead: OUP.

Webster, R., Blatchford, P. and Russell, A. (2013) “Challenging and changing how schools use teaching assistants”, in School Leadership and Management, Vol 33 (1), p78-96.

In this blog post I will address Goswami’s (2015) conclusions around children’s cognitive development and learning. Goswami (2015) believes that social interaction plays an important role in the development of children’s language and memory. She believes that children use their imagination to enhance ‘Thinking, reasoning and understanding’ (Goswami, 2015, p25). Vygotsky’s ideas around teachers facilitating learning and development through scaffolding can be associated with Goswami (Daniels, 2005; Ferreira Alves, 2014; McLeod, 2014). These approaches to learning influenced my planning and teaching of lessons to ensure all children could achieve the learning outcomes. This approach can also be linked to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Daniels, 2005; Kozulin et al, 2014; McLeod, 2014) stating that all children are individuals and therefore learn at different rates. However, it is not possible to plan for each individual child’s ZPD due to large class sizes. Therefore, the resources and strategies used within teaching are generalised and aimed to support the majority of children within the classroom.

(McLeod, 2014)

Goswami’s (2015) conclusions suggest that the language children are exposed to can influence their ability to learn within a school environment. Bernstein’s (1990; 1996) theories, suggesting that children who are linguistically deprived are more likely to be culturally deprived, can be associated with Goswami (2015). He believed that within education an elaborated code is used, comprising extensive detailed vocabulary (Bernstein, 1990; Bernstein, 1996). Children who may be culturally deprived, meaning they are exposed to a restricted code, may not be able to access or understand the language that is used within a school environment (Bernstein, 1990; Bernstein, 1996). Additionally, Bernstein assumes that all middle-class children will speak in the elaborated code (Morais, 2002). However, assumptions cannot be made about the level of language and learning children can access. Throughout my practice I used a variety of techniques, such as gestures and visual aids, to support children’s learning and make learning accessible to all children. This aspect of my practice was reinforced through a class visual timetable and individual bespoke resources, such as a now and next board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPTPV-JxS7Y

Goswami (2015) also believes that a child’s memory is impacted by the quality of the learning environment.  For example, if there is high visual stimulus within a classroom environment some children can become overwhelmed causing their learning to be negatively impacted. Goswami (2015) specifically focuses on episodic, long term memory, and working or short-term memory. If a child does not have a developed episodic memory, they could struggle to follow instructions and recall information (ibid). This can be a particular issue for SEND or EAL children who may struggle to process instructions due to language barriers or lack of cognitive development. Therefore, it is important to provide children with visual stimulus to refer to. Through teaching children should also be provided with a contextual understanding to develop their working memory (Goswami, 2015). From experience it is particularly important within Mathematics to relate learning to a context. When teaching about division I used the idea of a teddy bears picnic with my lower attaining pupils. They were acting as the bears sharing out sweets (multilink). The children were engaged in this activity and could then apply this contextual understanding to solve word problems, using the picnic as a specific context.

In conclusion, I believe the development of children’s language and memory skills are important for their development within education. As a teacher I am mindful of children’s prior knowledge and misconceptions when planning and delivering lessons. This ensures that my teaching is at the correct level and that I can provide children with differentiated activities where appropriate. I also consider how the learning environment may impact the children within my classroom and whether it helps or hinders their development. For example, within SBT1 there was a lack of visual stimulus that children could refer to throughout lessons. Therefore, I created a working wall for History which children could refer to throughout cross curricular lessons. Encouragement of children’s social interaction within lessons is also an approach that I will continue to develop. For example, I found that mixed attainment peer-assessment enabled children to develop a broader knowledge of language and reasoning, and supported children’s acknowledgement of their next steps.

References:

Bernstein, B. (1990) Class, Codes and Control, London: Routledge.

Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity, USA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Clarke, S. (2005) Defining Formative Assessment, London: Hodder Education.

Daniels, H. (2005) “Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning” Palincsar, A. S. (Ed) An Introduction to Vygotsky, (2^nd Edition), London: Routledge.

Goswami, U. (2015) Children’s cognitive development and learning, Cambridge: Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S. and Miller, S. N. (2003) “The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s Analysis of Learning and Instruction” Chaiklin, S. (Ed) Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McLeod, S. (2014) Lev Vygotsky, [online], Simply Psychology, Available: <https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html> [Accessed: 21/12/2018].

Morais, A.M. (2002) “Basil Bernstein at the Micro Level of the Classroom”, in British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol 23 (4), p559-569.

The Audiopedia, (2017) What is cultural deprivation? What does cultural deprivation mean? [online] Youtube, Available: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPTPV-JxS7Y> [Accessed: 21/12/18].

The National Curriculum states that Key Stage 2 (KS2) children should know how to: design, write and debug programmes; use sequence, selection and repetition; use logical reasoning; understand computer networks; use search technologies; use a variety of software; use technology safely (DfE, 2013; Turvey et al, 2016). As part of School Based Training 1 (SBT1) I planned and delivered a computing lesson to four Year 3 children. All the children are classified as Pupil Premium (PP) children who are of mixed attainment levels. One child within the group also has Special Educational Needs (SEND). Therefore, my focus was around an inclusive activity that everyone would enjoy and be able to take part in. I decided not to use computers and instead focused around programming using symbols. Caldwell and Smith (2017) believe that an unplugged activity is collaborative and can enable computing concepts to become meaningful.

The aim of the lesson was for the children to work in partners, one child acting as a ’robot’, to create a sequence that the ‘robot’ would then follow.

My learning objectives were:

To begin to understand the process behind designing and writing programmes.

To begin to use sequences and repetition to programme their peers through symbols.

I started the activity by mind mapping the children’s ideas around programming. The questions I asked the children were ‘Does anyone know what the word programming means?’ and ‘What do you have in your home that can be programmed?’

I then introduced the activity to the children and we discussed together what the symbols could mean. Berry (2014) implies that children learn about programming through creating their own sequences. I gave the children time to work with their partner to create a sequence without any direction. This caused the children to experience problems with their sequence, for example their ‘robot’ walked into a wall or table. This gave me the opportunity to introduce the idea of debugging to the children, explaining that the children would need to change their sequence to ensure their ‘robot’ would not hit any objects (Berry, 2013; Turvey et al, 2016). During the activity the children further developed their ideas on the symbols and decided that → could mean go forward a certain number of times. They also decided that ↓ could mean that the robot had to crouch down.

Next, I introduced a checklist, that we came up with together, to facilitate the children’s learning further. The checklist ensured the children had certain elements, such as repetition, in their sequence and gave them a criteria to follow. Turvey et al (2016) states that ‘Repetition and selection are vital in computing’ (p120). During this activity the whole group looked at each other’s sequences and filmed them using iPads. This gave children a sense of ownership over their sequence and they felt proud of what they created (the two videos were placed on the school system but are not able to be part of the blog due to confidentiality).

As a plenary to the lesson we discussed as a group which symbols we could use to programme a ‘robot’ to pick up an object. The children developed their ideas further of using the symbols to mean different things, for example using the light bulb to open and close the robot’s hand. From this I could see that all the children had an understanding of designing and writing programmes to perform a particular sequence. If I was to teach this activity again, I would encourage the children to write a rationale for the symbols they used to assess their understanding of algorithms and programming further.

Overall, I felt that the children understood programming and how different objects could be programmed to meet a certain criteria, for example getting a robot to a particular place. They were all able to use repetition within their sequence and recognised that the sequence may need to be changed to ensure their robot meets a specific destination, introducing the concept of debugging when problems arose. The children were keen to develop the activity further and wanted to share the activity with their peers on the playground.

References:

Berry, M. (2013) Computing in the national curriculum: A guide for primary teachers, [online], Naace, Available: <https://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/CASPrimaryComputing.pdf> [Accessed: 23/10/18].

Caldwell, H. and Smith, N. (2017) Teaching Computing Unplugged: exploring primary computing through practical activities away from the computer, London: SAGE.

DfE (2013) Computing programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2, [online], London, Available: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239033/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_Computing.pdf> [Accessed: 23/10/18].

Turvey, K., Potter, J., Burton, J., Allen, J. and Sharp, J. (2016) Primary Computing and Digital Technologies: Knowledge, understanding and practice, London: Learning Matters.

Yaroslavski, D. (2008) Lightbot, [online], Available: <http://lightbot.com/flash.html> [Accessed: 23/10/18].

Everyone within a school environment has the responsibility to safeguard children and their wellbeing. This can enable a greater picture of a child’s circumstances to be observed (DfE, 2018). It is essential that as a teacher I create a positive learning environment where children feel safe to discuss any issues that may be concerning them. This requires a child-centred approach to be taken, considering the best interests of the child (DfE, 2018; HM Government, 2018). Two key challenges for teachers, in regard to safeguarding and wellbeing, I have chosen to discuss in this blog are abuse and children’s safety online.

Abuse can be physical, emotional or sexual, which can be difficult to identify. However, indictors of abuse could include: behaviour changes; avoidance of family members without reason; not wanting to change their clothes in front of others; concern for younger siblings (DfE, 2015; DfE, 2018). As a teacher I need to be aware that even though a child may display an indicator of abuse there could be other factors, such as a change in family circumstances, that could be impacting the child. Therefore, as a teacher I will ensure I know the children within my classroom and try to establish positive relationships with the children and their parents/carers.

My own experience of working with Special Educational Needs (SEN) children has alerted me to the implementation of parents/carers filling in body maps, showing where their child may have a bruise or injury. This approach not only safeguards parents but also safeguards the organisation as they both have records of the injuries. Therefore, if an unexplained injury is discovered this can be disclosed to the Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL). However, this approach is not inclusive of emotional or mental abuse as this abuse does not take on a physical form. Therefore, all staff members within a school or organisation should be alert, question behaviours, ask for help if concerned and refer the child to the DSL if there is believed to be a safeguarding or wellbeing issue (HM Government, 2015).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBp3QYZXG0Y

Online safety is an issue that is becoming more apparent due to the rise of children’s access to portable devices, social media and online gaming (Turvey et al, 2016). News reports have recently discussed issues around online safety, such as the impact on children’s mental health and the enforcement of age limits on social media sites (BBC, 2018). Although social media sites, such as Facebook, have an age limit of thirteen years children in primary schools still have access. It is essential that all children have a critical understanding of their actions online and the consequences if they do not use online resources safely (Ofcom, 2016).

As a teacher it is important to me that children are empowered to stay safe online, with an awareness of how to locate and use aspects such as privacy settings and reporting procedures. Through lessons such as Personal Social Health Education (PSHE) an adult-led approach should be taken to inform children of the dangers of the online world and ways to stay safe. There are then many resources online, which can be explored as a class or individually, which enable children to visually see the issues discussed. An example I found which I would use in my own teaching was a game called Band Runner by Think U Know (http://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/8_10/). This game gives children scenarios in the form of ‘text messages’ about online safety which they then respond to. From this knowledge and the use of resources it is important to consolidate children’s understanding. I would do this through a child-led activity where children make their own videos or songs about online safety. It is of further importance to me that parents play an active role in teaching their children about online safety, working with the school to establish clear rules and responsibilities for their children when online.

Empowering children to be responsible on the internet and able to identify inappropriate sources through school work and parental input may encourage them to feel comfortable to discuss any issues with a trusted adult. However, this may not always be the case so as a teacher I should always be aware of indicators of a safeguarding or wellbeing issue (DfE, 2018).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nMUbHuffO8

References:

BBC (2018) Social media guidelines for young people to be drawn up, [online] Available:

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45696988> [Accessed: 02/10/2018].

CEOP (2011) Lee and Kim, [online], Available: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nMUbHuffO8> [Accessed: 02/10/2018].

Department for Education (2015) What to do if you’re worried a child is being abused, London: HM Government [online], Available: <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: 30/09/2018].

Department for Education (2018) Keeping Children Safe in Education, [online], Available: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741315/Keeping_Children_Safe_in_Education_2018__Part_One__14.09.18.pdf> [Accessed: 30/09/2018].

HM Government (2018) Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, London, [online], Available: <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729914/Working_Together_to_Safeguard_Children-2018.pdf> [Accessed: 30/09/2018].

NSPCC (2013) NSPCC Report – How safe of our children? [online], Available: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBp3QYZXG0Y> [Accessed: 02/10/2018].

Ofcom (2016) Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report, [online], Available: <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0034/93976/Children-Parents-Media-Use-Attitudes-Report-2016.pdf> [Accessed: 30/09/2018].

Think U Know (nd) Band Runner, [online], Available: <https://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/8_10/> [Accessed: 30/09/2018].

Turvey, K., Potter, J., Burton, J., Allen, J. and Sharp, J. (2016) Primary Computing and Digital Technologies: Knowledge, understanding and practice, London: Learning Matters.

I am a University of Brighton student on the PGCE Primary course, following the 5-11 route to QTS. My previous degree on the BA (Hons) Education course developed my interests around the education system – focusing on policy and practice. My current interests are around: Special Educational Needs (SEN) education and provisions; inclusive practice for all children; creativity within the classroom.

I feel passionate about teachers being facilitators of learning – enabling children to gain autonomy around their own learning and development. Children should be able to: explore; enquire; investigate; examine; analyse; research; and challenge the teaching and learning that is taking place.