Paces

Please, (Sir/Miss as you like), have I reached my potential yet?

Not so long since, I was driving home from Pembrokeshire and up the M42 when I passed a wagon on which was proudly declared that the company that ran it was the largest large vehicle and coach recovery company in the UK.

I remember thinking, for some bizarre reason, I wonder if the guy who runs it has fulfilled his potential?

 

Careers' Master (I went to a boys' grammar school) to bright pupil: You'll go a long way, young man.

Bright pupil to Careers' Master: Yes, I'm going to run the biggest large vehicle and coach recovery company Britain's ever seen.

So there you go. Potential fulfilled.

Actually, I really was at school with a great guy who became, for a couple of years,  Colonel Gaddaffi's personal pilot.  

Careers' Master (all boys school, remember): And what do you want to be when you grow up, young man?

School friend: Sir, I want to be the personal pilot of a mad despotic dictator.

Careers' Master: Well, we'd better qualify as a pilot first, hadn't we?

So, there you go again. Reached his potential didn't he?

As for me, on my school reports, I tended to get stuff, guff, like "Norman isn't working to his potential". "Could do better." (If you think of it "Norman is working to his potential" would sound quite damning, wouldn't it, as if the teacher really wanted to add "... it's just that he's thick.")  

Potential "reached"; potential "fulfilled". Was there ever a politician, trying to say something meaningful about Education, who didn't say they wanted every child to "reach" or "fulfil" his or her potential? (No, I shall resist googling potential in Hansard).

So why this sudden outpouring about "potential"? Because I currently have an active and practical interest in Trustee Board governance. And on twitter about 30 minutes or so ago, I read (Sean Whetstone @schoolgoverning) that 'A Recommended Code of Governance for Schools' had just been published by the Wellcome Trust and thought I'd take a first look. Sounds authoritative.

"The Wellcome Trust believes that good education is impossible without good governance." Just so, I thought. Up-front with a strong statement. Spot on.

"The Recommended Code aims to improve how school governing bodies work, including how they set strategic direction, how they evaluate their own performance, and how they hold the headteacher and other senior school leaders to account for the performance of the school." Just so, I thought, again. Governance in three words: strategy; self-evaluation; accountability. Governance for Dummies: get the book. Or rather "The Recommended Code". So I did. Downloaded it. 

Just at the moment I've been doing some work exploring what performance indicators (cf Ofsted "School Data Dashboard") can mean in an independent non-maintained special school, all of whose pupils have statements of special educational need and which practices conductive education. (As I write that, I'm wondering whether my perspicacious teacher wasn't correct after all about me not working to my potential!).  So I dipped straight into Section C of "The Recommended Code": 

“High-level school performance indicators, encompassing all outcomes for an effective school, on which governors report annually to parents. Linked to the high-level performance information that governors need to monitor the performance indicators.”

And there it was: the very first 'school peformance indicator' that I saw as I scrolled down the downloadable .pdf file:

Do learners at this school achieve to their potential?

I just have no idea what this can mean. Try: "Do teachers at this school teach to their potential?" Is that any more sensible? Does it mean anything more? Does it mean anything? If so, what? 

It just seems so much woolly thinking. Language as fluff. How can anyone know? How will I know when I reach my potential? Perhaps I already have done. Now there's a worrying thought. All down hill from there on? What if my potential peaked when I was 21? 42? 62? Teaching in Kenya in the 1970s? Sharing running the documentary-making company in the 1980s? Having had three great children? Being a loving husband? 

And just how is the Wellcome Trust proposing to measure whether learners achieve to their potential? In special schools, by pupil "Progress against appropriate measures".  Progress against approriate measures is just that, useful and important as it is, a measure not of "potential achieved" but of progress against appropriate measures. 

In what way is "Progress against appropriate measures" any more a measure of learners achieving their potential than it is of teachers teaching to their potential, especially when no-one can possibly yet know the "potential" of either learner or teacher? And when, if "potential" has any meaning whatsoever in education, it can only be something that is not "achieved" or "fulfilled" but "created". And what of the child for whom progress is, maybe only sometimes, agonisingly, almost unmeasurably, slight? Is their progress against appropriate measures evidence of their 'achieving their potential"?

"Potential achieved" is for educational bean-counters. The transaction between teacher and learner in education, in schooling, is transformational or it is nothing.

The real challenge for Trustees and Governors (and how much more so is this true in special education) is how to evidence that the school of which they are custodians and guardians is truly a transformational place for children, young adults and, yes, even the teachers and governors and all the other staff and the parents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A new one on me - the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education

As I say, a new one on me; an agency I've not heard of before: The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Have you?

It is, it says, "an independent and self-governing organisation, established by our member countries to act as their platform for collaboration in the field of special needs education."   I'm not sure what "independent" really means in this context as it is "maintained by the Ministries of Education in our member countries" which seems to include most European countries and a couple more besides.  The UK (England) representative (Scotland, Wales, and NI each have their own representative) is Nigel Fulton, a "Team Leader" with DfE.

The 'About Us' page was last modified on 17 November 2009, so does not necessailly reflect the change in British Government in 2010 and current government policy. There, it describes its work as:

We facilitate the collection, processing and transfer of European level and country specific information and offer our member countries the opportunity to learn from each other through different types of knowledge and experience exchange.

Our short and long term work programmes reflect both our member countries’ priorities and agreed EU policies regarding learners with special educational needs and the promotion of their full participation within mainstream education and training. (My emphasis)

In other words, one might reasonably conclude, this is the European Agency for the Promotion of Inclusion by National Departments of Education. Something quite different from what attracted me when I came across its (arguably misleading) title.

IPSEA: Children and Families Bill - call to action

The folowing is taken from an email from IPSEA, with thanks for the valuable work they are undertaking.

Children & Families Bill - take action

Step 1: Understand the impact of Part 3 of the Bill

IPSEA needs your help with protecting children’s rights to a proper education. We have created 3 documents to help you understand what the Children & Families (C & F) Bill means for children/young people with special educational needs (SEN) and/or a disability.

Click here to see IPSEA's C & F Bill documents.

Step 2: Take action to influence Part 3 of the Bill

• Sign IPSEA’s petition - once this is live the link will be here
• Complete IPSEA’s short on-line survey
• Give feedback via Public Reading of the Bill - closes 26 Feb
• Write to or meet with your MP 
• Let IPSEA keep you informed so that you can inform others

The Economist on early years' education, an international trend

Over the years, I have often found myself making the case for the conductive education of very young children with cerebral palsy, in the face of doubt, disbelief or downright dismissal that education has anything to offer. Surgery? Yes. Drug treatments? Yes. Therapy? Of course.

But education? I am not aware of any mainstream schools or nurseries that offer specialist education programmes, led by specifically trained teachers, for the very young with cerebral palsy. Perhaps somewhere there is but I am not aware of it.

Surgery, drugs and therapy are the "givens" of "intervention" for very young children with cerebral palsy. That the case still has to be made that such children need teaching seems to me to speak volumes about the failure of mainstream provision for these children and their families - and why making the case is such an uphill struggle.

However, there is, apparently, an international trend to a focus on the early years education of the very young. It's not just confined to Liz Truss, Minister for Education and Childcare, it seems.  The Economist today publishes an article "Learning for the very young: Little Steps" which considers this international trend. Even in America:

BARACK OBAMA likes to call education “the currency for the information age”. His presidency has brought a big shift in America’s priorities, devoting more effort and resources—and an extra $2 billion—to children who have not yet started their formal schooling.

I wonder this: if, all over the world, politicians are focusing on "children who have not yet started their formal schooling", might this be the time to make the case for children with cerebral palsy to have their specialist (conductive education) share?  

If no-one knows what's working, how does anyone know what's being "destroyed"?

Guardian award-winning columnist, Suzanne Moore, last Wednesday contributed a bizarre, hissy-fit of an article "Michael Gove is destroying our school system" that prompted blogger Tom Bennett to respond with "The Intellectual Abyss in Education: Suzanne Moore and why everyone's an expert". 

After first pointing out the essential "pot-calling-the-kettle-black" contradiction on which Suzanne Moore's article rests,  "Gove, the amateur, the journalist who knows nothing about education, [is] put in his place by Moore, the amateur, the journalist, who apparently knows so much more than he", Tom Bennett has this to say:

So what about research? The rational outside observer might think that this was a safe harbour against whim and fancy. But, tragically, it isn’t. The relationship between educational research and real schools, real children, is an unhappy, fractious one.

 

Part of the reason is the nature of social science itself. I could write a book (and have) about the way scientists attempted to turn the miraculously efficient  methods of the natural sciences to the inner world of the human mind, and found that discerning the boiling point of sodium was a very different goal than working out ‘What is learning? ‘, or ‘How deep your love?’. Difficulties with establishing methodologies that distinguish causes from effects, effects from each other, causal density, reliability, cognitive bias, the Hawthorne effect….if it’s a problem with clean methodology in the natural sciences, it’s a problem cubed in the social sphere.

The second reason is that social science research is often twisted and stretched into chimera by rolling media, and eager lobbyists looking for evidence to substantiate their bias. Of course, this is an issue in medicine for example, but it’s worse -much worse- in education, where the very things you’re trying to assess are nebulous abstracts like ‘learning’ and ‘engagement’ that defy clarification and revel in obfuscation. In Teacher Proof, out next June, I wrote about this, frustrated by the way that evidence in educational research points both ways, like Dorothy’s scarecrow.

 

Does research tell us how many children in mainstream schools, identified as having 'special educational needs', make such progress as a result of the teaching they receive as later no longer to be so identified?  

My understanding is that DfE do not collect this information. Seems fundamental, to me. If no-one knows how many children are making progress (never mind how for the moment), then how does Suzanne Moore or anyone else know whether the mainstream education system is working or not? Or whether anyone is "destroying it"?

Children & Families Bill published: for SEN see Section 3

The following is from IPSEA:

Children & Families Bill published 
IPSEA has issued a Press Release about the new Children & Families Bill. 

At 5pm on Monday 4th February, the Children & Families Bill was presented in Parliament. The Bill was published today. Section 3 of this Bill is based on the draft SEN provisions that IPSEA analysed in October 2012. 

Our Press Release has some initial observations. Edward Timpson, the Minister responsible for SEN, has written a letter explaining some of the changes made to the draft provisions. You can read his letter here.
 
You can view the Bills' progress through Parliament here. IPSEA will produce a thorough analysis of the Bill in due course. We will let you know once this is completed.  

The links kindly provided by IPSEA are an invaluable resource. The IPSEA Press Release generally welcomes the legislation on SEN and outlines IPSEA's initial response.

You can follow IPSEA (@IPSEAcharity) on Twitter and on Facebook. 

"Preparing for Adulthood" is tracking responses to publication of Bill on their website.

Draft SEN legislation published

In the week that the Prime Minister was busy announcing his new Cabinet, a re-shuffle that saw Sarah Teather lose her job as Minister for Children and Families (and responsibility for what she called the 'greatest reform of SEN in a generation'), the Government has published draft legislation to be included in the Children and Families Bill. The Bill is expected to be put before Parliament in 2013 and be enacted in 2014.

The draft legislation follows on from the Department for Education’s Green Paper, Support and Aspiration published in March 2011 and its consulation response Next Steps published in May 2012.

My initial very quick reading suggests nothing new of great significance that we were not aware of from the previous documents. However, as far as non-maintained special schools, such as Paces School, are concerned the draft legislation does seem a step forward in certain respects with no down-sides not already known.

I expect to undertake a more careful reading in the next couple of days and will post my comments then. Already responses are being published on the internet and I will aim to gather these for a future post here.

Meanwhile, I urge you to read the document for yourself:  this link will automatically download a .pdf version

No training for teachers of children with cerebral palsy?

Perhaps worth reading in full is an interesting SEN blog posting from the National Association of Head Teachers relating mostly to training.

This caught my eye:

"The Autism Education Trust (AET) has rolled out Level 1 of their materials through 7 regional Training Hubs (see www.autismeducationtrust.org.uk/TrainingHubs). Already, over 1,500 people have been trained. Levels 2 & 3 are being piloted at present and will become available in the Autumn. At the same time, the DfE has funded the AET to develop a set of National Standards, which schools can use for self-evaluation, as well as a Competency Framework, which can be used alongside appraisal to identify staff training needs.

Similar Frameworks have been developed by the The Communication Trust (www.thecommunicationtrust.org.uk) and the Dyslexia- SpLD Trust (www.dyslexia-SpLDtrust.org.uk) for those who want to move their schools forward in terms of speech, language and communication needs (SLCN), or Specific Learning Difficulties (SpLD).

My first thought was to wonder why there isn't a "Physical Disabilites Educational Trust" or "Cerebral Palsy Educational Trust" that can win contracts from the DfE to develop training programmes as the AET has?

My second thought was to wonder how it is that there appear to be no training programmes for those who teach children with physical disabilities arising from cerebral palsy or similar neuorological impairments?  

Maybe you know the answers?

Change is inevitable – the Law and SEN

Jane McConnell, (parent, CEO IPSEA) who was one of the Panel of Witnesses who gave evidence to the recent Education Select Committee, writes for SEN magazine (“A change is gonna come“) on how the law is going to change and what it all means for SEN provisions like Paces School and adult services. It is very well worth a little of your time to read.

She is particularly good on the outstanding areas of concern, though some will not share her firm view offered to the recent Education Committee that the Government should delay its legislation until the “Next Steps” pathfinders have reported.

I do, however, agree strongly with Jane that “The central issue that has not been mentioned yet is how to make the assessment process independent from LAs”.

Education Committee hears SEN evidence

Missed this when it happened a couple of weeks ago.

This is a lengthy read in total but if you can find the time it’s a useful guide to the ‘current state of play’ in what the Minister Sarah Teather calls a “complete re-engineering” of the system of special educational needs.

House of Commons: Oral Evidence: Taken Before the Education Committee –  Special Educational Needs. Wednesday 20 June 2012

If you’ve no time at all, then have a glance at the Minister’s answer to Question 67: in summary, her account of that re-engineering.

The ‘Oral Evidence’ comprises 2 parts:

1. ‘Examination of Witnesses’: Philippa Stobbs, Vice Chair (Policy), Special Educational Consortium, Jane McConnell, Chief Executive, IPSEA, Professor Brahm Norwich, Professor of Education Psychology and SEN, University of Exeter, Martin Bacon, Principal, Swavesey Village College, and Debbie Jones, Director of Children’s Services, Lambeth, and President, ADCS

2. ‘Examination of Witness’: Sarah Teather, Minister of State for Children and Families. Questions 59 – 117 (end)