Learning from theCOVIDcrisis for educating children and young people with SEN/disabilities.

Abstract

Journal of Research in Special Educational NeedsVolume 21, Issue 2 p. 168-184 Senco Policy PaperOpen Access Learning from the COVID crisis for educating children and young people with SEN/disabilities First published: 25 April 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12513AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Contents Page 1. Introduction 2-4 2. Special education during lockdown: Provider and parent experiences Amy Skipp 4-8 3. Parents' perspectives: what can we learn from COVID crisis education for students labelled with SEND Sharon Smith 8-12 4. Managing medical complexity in specialist educational settings during COVID Dominic Wall 12-15 5. Summary of group discussions 15-17 This policy seminar on Learning from the COVID crisis for educating children and young people with SEN/disabilities, which took place via Zoom on 16 November 2020, addressed these current issues and questions: (1) What has it been possible to provide for the range of SEN since the COVID crisis? How well has provision worked and what has been worse and/or better than before COVID? (2) What has been learned from the experience of the COVID crisis that has affected: Ideas about what education for CYP with SEN/disabilities is about and how future education might be delivered? (3) How are parents thinking about the future of education for their children? For example, increased interest in home schooling for particular group and where not at school has led to reduced stress? Presentations were by Amy Skipp (ASK Research) on ‘Special education during lockdown: Provider and parent experiences’, Sharon Smith (Parent Advocate) on ‘Parents' perspectives: what can we learn from COVID crisis education for students labelled with SEND’, and Dominic Wall (Executive Principal & SEND Lead for Co-op Academies Trust) on ‘Managing medical complexity in specialist educational settings during COVID’. Amy Skipp presented the conclusions from a study that involved a survey of a representative sample of 200 senior leaders from special schools and colleges, a survey of over 500 parents/carers of children who usually this provision and 40 in-depth interviews with providers and 40 with parents/carers. This covered the actions special schools and colleges took at the start of the first national lockdown and what happened with teaching and learning for pupils on roll at special schools/colleges as well as the non-educational input. The research found that not only that the whole cohort of pupils with EHCPs faced greater disadvantage than their peers during the pandemic, but those from poorer backgrounds faced even greater challenges compared to their better-off peers, leading to a double disadvantage, and the potential for a further widening of the attainment gap. The main effects of this period on pupils were reported as follows: worse mental well-being, loss of progress and skills, increased social isolation, physical deterioration and uncertain futures. The research team will continue monitoring what happens next in special schools and colleges and for the families of children who attend them. Sharon Smith draws on a number of studies to describe how parents' perspectives of education during COVID have been very mixed. Some parents have reported that their children have thrived – whether they have been at home or within the education provision for vulnerable children during lockdown in schools. Yet, many other families have reported the opposite. These families have described how they have felt utterly abandoned during this period, reporting that their children had a really poor experience of education during the COVID crisis, which has left families having to try and pick up the pieces, whilst also juggling other commitments including the education of their other children. It is suggested that the COVID crisis has exposed the existing inequalities and the exclusion of some children who have SEND. In this way, it has aggravated pre-existing inequalities and exposes the extent of exclusion within the state education system. She concludes with the experiences of her daughter, who has Down syndrome, showing how she actually benefited from being educated at home and how those benefits continued to be seen when she was back at school. Dominic Wall focuses on managing medical complexity, the care conditions requiring aerosol-generating procedures, which had been a key talking point during the COVID period. Children with complex health care needs were ill-served by the system collectively, and many children were not able to return to school when the promise was ‘all children will return in September.’ By November 2020, all 17 of those students were still not attending school because of personal protective equipment (PPE) issues. This paper shows that this is a story about complicated government procedures, advice writing, triple-locks where the Cabinet Office reviews things before it lets the DfE say them. This issue sits within a wider context and the underlying fault lines in which there are contradictory messages with the consequence that this very vulnerable group of children spent 8 months without clear guidance that really describes how schools can seek to meet their needs. The Summary of the group discussion indicated some common general conclusions about the inequality revealed by the COVID crisis, not just about special needs, but education across the board, seen to reflect the powerful effect of socio-economic disadvantage. It was also suggested that the quality of pre-existing relationships and values in schools influenced how well schools coped with the restrictions. Various positives were identified, such as parents appreciating what teachers were doing, innovative online multi-agency approaches, significant professional learning about online learning and about changes and flexibility in organising teaching, learning and grouping. The negatives were as follows: the gaps in out of school provision, safeguarding concerns, some schools not having supportive systems around them, examples of unwelcoming schools and rare recognition for teachers' contributions during the period. In addition, some recommendations were made: the importance of the well-being of all teachers, their preparation for additional support of returning pupils, more flexibility and change in designing and carrying out teaching and learning, more done to share positive stories and practices on which teachers and schools can build and that parents will be more supportive of children going back into schools, if there were clearer and more consistent official messages. Section 1: Introduction This policy seminar on Learning from the COVID crisis for educating children and young people with SEN/disabilities on 16 November 2020, 2–4 pm on Teams. It addressed the following issues and questions: What has it been possible to provide for the range of SEN since the COVID crisis? How well has provision worked and what has been worse and/or better than before COVID? What has been learned from the experience of the COVID crisis that has affected: Ideas about what education for CYP with SEN/disabilities is about and how future education might be delivered? How are parents thinking about the future of education for their children? For example, increased interest in home schooling for particular group and where not at school has led to reduced stress? The programme consisted of three presentations followed by discussions in small group. Amy Skipp (ASK Research) on ‘Special education during lockdown: Provider and parent experiences’, Sharon Smith (Parent Advocate) on ‘Parents' perspectives: what can we learn from COVID crisis education for students labelled with SEND’, and Dominic Wall (Executive Principal & SEND Lead for Co-op Academies Trust, Co-op Academy Southfield) on ‘Managing medical complexity in specialist educational settings during COVID’. The conclusions of the small group discussions are summarised at the end of this policy paper. SEN Policy Research Forum The SEN Policy Research Forum, which organised this seminar, incorporates the aims and work of the previous SEN Policy Options group in a new format and with some expanded aims. The Forum's website is at: https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk The aim of the Forum is to contribute intelligent analysis, knowledge and experience to promote the development of policy and practice for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The Forum will be concerned with children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities from preschool to post-16. It will cover the whole of the UK and aim to (1) provide timely policy review and critique, (2) promote intelligent policy debate, (3) help set longer term agendas – acting like a think-tank, (4) deliberate over and examine policy options in the field. (5) Inform research and development work in the field and (6) contribute to development of more informed media coverage of SEND policy issues. The uncertainties over what counts as ‘special educational needs’ and ‘disabilities’ in relation to a wider concept of ‘additional needs’ are recognised. These will be among the many issues examined through the Forum. The Forum, which continues the work of the SEN Policy Options group has been continuing this work since 1993 for over 28 years. It started as an ESRC seminar series with some initial funding from the Cadbury Trust. The Forum appreciates the generous funding from NASEN and the Pears Foundation to enable it to function, though it operates independently of these organisations. Lead group and coordination of the Forum Dr Peter Gray – Policy Consultant (co-coordinator). Professor Brahm Norwich – University of Exeter (co-coordinator). Yoland Burgess - Young People's Education and Skills, London Councils. Professor Julie Dockrell – UCL Institute of Education. Beate Hellawell – Lewisham local authority. Dr Brian Lamb – Policy consultant. Professor Geoff Lindsay – University of Warwick. Penny Richardson – Policy Consultant. Chris Robertson – SENCO Forum; University of Birmingham. Sharon Smith – Parent of young person with SEN. Dr Rob Webster – UCL Institute of Education. Professor Klaus Wedell – UCL, Institute of Education. Julie Wharton – Winchester University. Membership If you would like to join the Forum, go to the website and follow link to register as a member. You will be invited to future seminars and be able to participate in discussion through the blog on the SENPRF website for joining instructions. https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk For further information, please contact the co-coordinators of the Forum, Brahm Norwich, Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Heavitree Road, Exeter EX1 2LU (b.norwich@exeter.ac.uk) or Peter Gray (pgray@sscyp). Past Policy Options Papers (see website for downloadable copies) Bucking the market: Peter Housden, Chief Education Officer, Nottinghamshire LEA Towards effective schools for all: Mel Ainscow, Cambridge University Institute of Education Teacher education for special educational needs: Professor Peter Mittler, Manchester University Resourcing for SEN: Jennifer Evans and Ingrid Lunt, Institute of Education, London University Special schools and their alternatives: Max Hunt, Director of Education, Stockport LEA Meeting SEN: options for partnership between health, education and social services: Tony Dessent, Senior Assistant Director, Nottinghamshire LEA SEN in the 1990s: users' perspectives: Micheline Mason, Robina Mallet, Colin Low and Philippa Russell Independence and dependence? Responsibilities for SEN in the Unitary and County Authorities: Roy Atkinson, Michael Peters, Derek Jones, Simon Gardner and Phillipa Russell Inclusion or exclusion: Educational Policy and Practice for Children and Young People with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: John Bangs, Peter Gray and Greg Richardson Baseline Assessment and SEN: Geoff Lindsay, Max Hunt, Sheila Wolfendale, Peter Tymms Future policy for SEN: Response to the Green Paper: Brahm Norwich, Ann Lewis, John Moore, Harry Daniels Rethinking support for more inclusive education: Peter Gray, Clive Danks, Rik Boxer, Barbara Burke, Geoff Frank, Ruth Newbury and Joan Baxter Developments in additional resource allocation to promote greater inclusion: John Moore, Cor Meijer, Klaus Wedell, Paul Croll and Diane Moses. Early years and SEN: Professor Sheila Wolfendale and Philippa Russell Specialist Teaching for SEN and inclusion: Annie Grant, Ann Lewis and Brahm Norwich The equity dilemma: allocating resources for special educational needs: Richard Humphries, Sonia Sharpe, David Ruebain, Philippa Russell and Mike Ellis Standards and effectiveness in special educational needs: questioning conceptual orthodoxy: Richard Byers, Seamus Hegarty and Carol Fitz Gibbon Disability, disadvantage, inclusion and social inclusion: Professor Alan Dyson and Sandra Morrison Rethinking the 14-19 curriculum: SEN perspectives and implications: Dr Lesley Dee, Christopher Robertson, Professor Geoff Lindsay, Ann Gross, and Keith Bovair Examining key issues underlying the Audit Commission Reports on SEN: Chris Beek, Penny Richardson and Peter Gray Future schooling that includes children with SEN/disability: Klaus Wedell, Ingrid Lunt and Brahm Norwich Taking Stock: integrated Children's Services, Improvement and Inclusion: Margaret Doran, Tony Dessent and Professor Chris Husbands Special schools in the new era: how do we go beyond generalities? Chris Wells, Philippa Russell, Peter Gray and Brahm Norwich Individual budgets and direct payments: issues, challenges and future implications for the strategic management of SEN Christine Lenehan, Glenys Jones Elaine Hack and Sheila Riddell Personalisation and SEN Judy Sebba, Armando DiFinizio, Alison Peacock and Martin Johnson. Choice-equity dilemma in special educational provision John Clarke, Ann Lewis, Peter Gray SEN Green Paper 2011: progress and prospects Brian Lamb, Kate Frood and Debbie Orton A school for the future - 2025: Practical Futures Thinking Alison Black The Coalition Government's policy on SEND: aspirations and challenges? P. Gray, B. Norwich, P Stobbs and S Hodgson. How will accountability work in the new SEND legislative system? Parents from Camden local authority, Penny Richardson, Jean Gross and Brian Lamb Research in special needs and inclusive education: the interface with policy and practice, Brahm Norwich, Peter Blatchford, Rob Webster, Simon Ellis, Janet Tod, Geoff Lindsay and Julie Dockrell. Professional training in the changing context of special educational needs disability policy and practice. Neil Smith, Dr Hazel Lawson, Dr Glenys Jones. Governance in a changing education system: ensuring equity and entitlement for disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs. Peter Gray, Niki Elliot and Brahm Norwich. School commissioning for send: new models, limits and possibilities, Tom Jefford, Debbie Orton and Kate Fallon. An early review of the new SEN/disability policy and legislation: where are we now? Brian Lamb, Kate browning, Andre Imich and Chris Harrison. Preparing for adulthood - developing provision for children and young people with SEND. Yolande Burgess Justin Cooke. Ellen Atkinson and Gill Waceba. A worthwhile investment? Assessing and valuing educational outcomes for children and young people with SEND. Graham Douglas, Graham Easterlow, Jean Ware & Anne Heavey Changes in SEN/disability provision, pressures on ordinary schools and parental choice: a review of inclusive education and its prospects. Alison Black, Lizzie Harris, Jayne Fitzgerald, Claire-Marie Whiting and Jenny Andrews. Policy for SEND and Inclusion: examining UK national and some European differences. Chris Robertson, Alfons Timmerhuis Niels Egelund and Camilla Brørup Dyssegaard, Cecilia Simón and Gerardo Echeita and Richard Rieser.2018 Exclusions, barriers to admission and quality of mainstream provision for children and young people with SEND: what can be done? Jules Daulby, Louise Gazeley, Nicola Furey and James Roach. 2019 Accountability, performance management and inspection: how to enable positive responses to diversity? Jonathan Roberts, Nick Whittaker, Jane Starbuck and Robin Banerjee. 2020 A review of policy in the field of special needs and inclusive education since the 1990s Lorna Selfe, Robin C. Richmond with Peter Gray and Brahm Norwich. 2020 Trends in SEN identification: contexts, causes and consequences, Jo Hutchinson, Sami Timimi and Neil McKay, 2020. Copies of most of these papers can now be downloaded from the website of the SEN Policy Research Forum https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/past-policy-papers/ Section 2: Special education during lockdown: Provider and parent experiences Amy Skipp In this paper, I present the first set of findings from a study we have carried out looking at special education provision during lockdown. This project was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and carried out in collaboration with NFER and Rob Webster. The study involved a survey of a representative sample of 200 senior leaders from special schools and colleges, a survey of over 500 parents/carers of children who usually this provision and 40 in-depth interviews with providers and 40 with parents/carers. The fieldwork period was July–August 2020, so during the first national lockdown, and the aim was to understand what both groups had done during this time and how decisions had been made. What actions did special schools and colleges take at the start of the first national lockdown? In March 2020, the government announced that educational institutions would need to close to the majority of pupils. The exceptions were those whose parents were critical workers or who were deemed vulnerable. This latter group included those on Child Protection Orders as well as pupils with EHCPs. This announcement set up the expectation that all pupils with EHCPs could continue to attend their usual place of learning. The issued guidance on how to deliver in school over this time was perceived as showing a very limited understanding of how special providers operate and the types of needs that their students have. 98% of special schools and colleges have pupils requiring one to one support 76% have pupils who need personal care 98% said they had pupils who could not adhere to social distancing and safety measure Guidance at that time suggested 2-m distance was kept between pupils and staff, that pupils were sat in rows of desks and that shared equipment was removed. Providers reported how this caused them severe delivery issues, as their pupils require physical contact and their schools/colleges often have small teaching spaces and high staff numbers. In addition, leaders identified that their provision involved medically vulnerable populations, who are often reliant on transport to get to school and who require high levels of therapeutic input. This resulted in the majority of special schools and colleges being open for in-school pupils but with severely limited capacity. Our data show that nine out of ten providers stayed open, offering in-school provision over this time. Parents reported how the changes brought about by the pandemic had affected them and their families. Ordinarily they were reliant on the support their child received at school (both learning, social engagement and therapy/intervention delivery); respite, in-home and community services; and both formal and informal child and family support. When ‘lockdown’ was announced, all of this help stopped. School offers were reduced or children could not be accommodated in school, usual activities delivered by the school stopped, and health and social care services were severely reduced or ceased altogether. Many families therefore found this a very difficult time as they had to manage without all of this usual support, they were responsible for care of the child with SEND 24/7 with no break, and they often had to also care for other children, engaging all children at home in remote learning, whilst at the same time potentially trying to maintain their own work, and the anxiety caused by the uncertainty of the circumstances. Some also reported how their child's needs had increased over this time, including their self-regulation and behaviour management having worsened, and that they were restricted to being inside all day, every day. I can't take my eyes off him for one minute without fear of him putting stuff in his mouth and choking, climbing up the cooker or in the kitchen drawers, or trying to strangle his brother. ParentI don't even get time to go to the toilet. My daughter has to come with me and I sit her on my lap. Like having a toddler, except she's twelve. Parent As providers could only take a certain number of pupils into school and they knew that families would really struggle if they were left with their children at home with them for an extended period, they had to make very difficult decisions about who to offer the available places to. They had to balance the risks of pupils being in school with the risks of them remaining at home. Throughout I've had to weigh up the possibility of a virus that may spread in children, and may or may not make some school members very poorly, with the certainty that lots of our pupils will find this massive change really hard and that this will be very difficult for many families to manage. Provider interview Parents also had to decide, even if they were offered a place in school, what actions to take. They reported weighing up the benefits of maintaining their school place – keeping a routine, specialist input and tailored support, as well as allowing the family some respite – with the potential risks – from their child mixing with others and potentially being more susceptible to catching or being more severely affected by the virus than other children. Many families told us that over this period they had chosen to ‘shield their household’, fearing that for various reasons they may be at greater risk from COVID-19 (including underlying health conditions, behaviours, being from a BAME background, or – most often in single-parent families – having limited other childcare options). As lockdown went on, and after government guidance eased restrictions slightly after June 1, schools and colleges still faced capacity issues but switched to offering places on a part-time basis, that is instead of having one pupil in for 5 days, they offered two pupils places for 2.5 days each. Providers felt this would help give more families a bit of a break, but also mean pupils kept in the habit of attending school. By June we were getting parents who were a lot more emotional requesting places. They were just at the end of their tether. Provider Overall, half of the parents we surveyed said their child attended school/college at some point between lockdown starting in March and the end of the Summer term. This obviously means that half of pupils did not attend their special school or college at all over these 5 months (plus the August holiday period). What happened with teaching and learning for pupils on roll at special schools/colleges? In school input Three quarters of providers said their focus was on childcare rather than learning over this period. Our aim is to help our pupils to tread water during this time until we get back to normal and teaching them again. Provider To adhere to the way they interpreted government guidance, along with broader public health messages, many of the usual in-school routines and activities had to be drastically altered or stopped altogether. Contact times (i.e. the length of time they spent in class) and the offer (how they were spending their time and what support could be available to them) were reduced. In addition, some providers had felt the need to strengthen their behaviour policies (e.g. pupils who spat could not be allowed in school). Remote input As was the case with most other schools, specialist providers attempted to develop a remote support offer. This was reported as more challenging for pupils with EHCPs than with other learners. Providers reported that an average of 30% of their families whose child had an EHCP had limited or no IT access. In addition, many pupils with SEND were reported to find engaging with ‘on screen’ learning difficult or impossible. Providers tried to produce resources in a range of ways including paper worksheets, activity packs, some live online lessons, online links and home visits. They reported that: Learning materials and feedback were personalised Pupil engagement was good Remote support was resource intensive (due to the need to personalise it to each pupils' needs and their family circumstances) Parents said home learning was difficult, as they were not equipped to support their child's specialist learning and their focus was on keeping their children happy and occupied. Amounts of home learning reported by families of pupils with EHCPs were lower than for other pupils. Non-educational input Pupils with EHCPs not only require special support for their education, but also often access health and care services. The requirements to deliver all the support detailed in EHCPs were disapplied by the Coronavirus Act 2020, but LAs were asked to use their ‘best endeavours’ to provide support. Parents and providers reported how many of these additional services became unavailable during the pandemic. Frontline health staff, for example, were re-deployed and other staff were advised to work from home and not carry out any work in-person. There were reports of missed GP, hospital appointments and sessions with Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service; a lack of therapeutic input including Physio, Speech and Language Therapy, Occupational Therapy and hydrotherapy; and issues with equipment provision (such as standing frames and splints). In terms of reduced social support services, families lost respite, in-home and personal care services as well as family support events and activities (often provided by community and voluntary sector organisations). In addition, education providers reported how they had to pick up family welfare checks and manage increasing numbers of safeguarding issues. These pupils all have EHCPs, which are meant to involve support from three services. But everyone else just went home and expected us to pick it all up. Provider Many providers reported that pupils lost health and care input over this six-month period and that it was difficult for education practitioners to try and plug the gap. Disadvantage, doubled? Pupils with SEND face worse life outcomes than their peers with no SEND. This cohort is also more likely to be from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Government statistics show around 35% of pupils with an EHC plan are eligible for free school meals, more than double that for pupils with no SEN (close to 15%). Compared with schools and colleges serving less deprived communities, special providers with higher proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals were more likely to experience staffing issues, not be able to maintain health and care input, not be providing pupil feedback on learning, have higher rates of families without access to IT and report lower pupil engagement over the lockdown period. This means that our data show not only that the whole cohort of pupils with EHCPs faced greater disadvantage than their peers during the pandemic, due to the difficulties of providing in-school and remote support and the loss of the other vital support they require. But, in addition, those from poorer backgrounds faced even greater challenges compared to their better-off peers, leading to a double disadvantage, and the potential for a further widening of the attainment gap. Likely effects of this period Parents and providers detailed how pupils with EHCPs had lost learning and regressed in their skills and abilities over this time. Some pupils had seen benefits from this time in terms of not having to attend school and having more time at home with family. However, many had experienced worsening mental well-being and behaviour issues due to the change in their routine and increased anxiety. The main effects of this period on pupils were reported as: Worse mental well-being Loss of progress and skills Increased social isolation Physical deterioration Uncertain futures It was also felt that wider family well-being had suffered over this time, and relationships between families and service providers had in some cases deteriorated. Parents also reported that relationships at home had been severely strained over this period, including the breakdown of some parental relationships. Special schools and colleges felt they were going to have to spend an extended period of time in the new academic year re-acclimatising pupils to being in school and learning, but also addressing their increased emotional needs that had developed over the preceding six months. Providers also detailed how what they could offer (in terms of time in school/college, activities undertaken, in-school routines) would remain limited from September 2020, and they had concerns about when the additional services that had stopped during the pandemic would resume. The majority felt that pupils with EHCPs would have g