Editorial

Abstract

This issue completes another year in which developments in the orientation of Support for Learning continue apace. Its virtual Editorial Office, only recently established at the Swiss Cottage School and Research Centre, is now co-located. This results from my own recent appointment to the staff of the School of Education at Brunel University, London. This arrangement will amplify the Journal’s focus – that of connecting theory with practice, researchers more closely with practitioners, in the ‘real world’ of special and inclusive education. The move gives me an opportunity for quiet reflection on my own career pathway. In 1988 I moved from my work as a classroom teacher and SEND leader in a community high school in Greater London. At that time schools in England were still busy addressing the requirements of the 1981 Education Act. But the educational landscape was in some turmoil, as a result of the changes resulting from the 1988 Education Act, the so-called ‘Reform Act’ – its terminological inappropriateness being noted by JK Galbraith, inferring its negative impact on some aspects of educational provision: notably teacher autonomy in the face of an imposed National Curriculum, the value-added inputs by ‘Local Education Authorities’ and the creation of an education market-place driven by parental aspiration. Children and young people with SEND were predictably on the margins during conversations regarding post 1988 provision. In somewhat cowardly fashion I escaped the longer-term negative impacts of this market-driven, Thatcherite view of schooling. Although a longing for those exquisite, life-changing interactions with children who learned and behaved differently was palpable, it was offset by new professional challenges. I moved into teacher education, at what was to emerge in the early 1990s as Brunel University. It was a time of further self-discovery and fulfilment – teaching and researching in special educational needs and the then newly emergent inclusive policy and practice. What I did note, almost from the start, was the quite stark division between way that initial teacher preparation and their subsequent professional development functioned in many cases in isolation from the ‘real world’ that I’d recently abandoned. Now, as I re-establish myself, after 30 years or more, with Brunel University I am inclined to reflect on how little has changed in respect of the challenges experienced by SEND stakeholders. Whilst statutorily and operationally the current landscape is very different, those closely involved in all aspects of provision and those who choose to reflect critically on the circumstances prevailing for marginalised children and young people will undoubtedly be struck more by continuities than differences. Thus, schools still struggle to effectively resource their SEND provision, the children who challenge the most are still more likely to be excluded, the serial debates concerning what constitutes inclusive education are ongoing, and the training of both teachers and school-leaders remains fraught with inconsistency. Whilst I accept with relish my new position as a Professor of Education, the same relief and (dare I say) cowardice is once more apparent. I am certainly reassured that I don’t have to complete another lap… Moving to more substantive and certainly less whimsical issues, the present issue of Support for Learning rises well above any sense I may have given that commitment and practical endeavour is absent in research and practice in special and inclusive education. The issue provides a customary range of perspectives and national lenses via which key topics in SEND are being explored. I am pleased to say that Support for Learning has retained such orientations, signalled by the articles by Shiralee Poed and her colleagues in Australia, alongside that of Timo Salovita from Finland. These are important voices, not only because they impart new ideas and perspectives but also because they remind those of us in the United Kingdom that parochialism is an inhibitor of professional advancement. Other, more ‘local’ contributions are made by authors with wide-ranging professional backgrounds and interests, reflected in the rich variety of topics covered. I’m delighted that Emma Clarke and her colleague John Visser have extended their interrogation of the role of teaching assistants in supporting change in children’s behaviour. Nikita Hayden and her colleagues from the University of Warwick examine the infrequently visited issue of supporting siblings with a SEND. Equally thought-provoking, and only modestly covered in educational literature, is the question of those who are ‘care experienced’ and who thus can face additional barriers in accessing learning. Finally, Emma-Kate Kennedy and Laleh Laverick shine an important light on the role of school leaders, who are so vital as catalysts in progressing an agenda which is adds value by helping those with SEND to achieve and to belong.