SEN Code Of Practice Research Articles

Transition planning for d/Deaf young people from mainstream schools: professionals’ views on the implementation of policy

This article presents the experiences of professionals working with d/Deaf young people from mainstream schools through those young people’s transitions to adulthood. Transitions to further and higher education and employment and social transitions to independence are explored in the context of the transition planning process outlined in the 2001 SEN Code of Practice, with suggestions for lessons to be learned for the introduction of Education Health and Care plans in 2014. It is concluded that more consideration should be given to the specific needs of d/Deaf young people in transition planning, and the unique knowledge and experience of d/Deaf professionals should be harnessed more effectively in creating policy that affects young d/Deaf people.

The SEN Code of Practice explained

Schools are still getting to grips with the implications of the SEN reforms and the new SEN Code of Practice. We asked inclusion expert Daniel Sobel to summarise the key changes

Looking at ADHD in the context of the new SEN Code of Practice

The new Special Educational Needs Code of Practice has had wide-ranging implications, but what does it mean for children with ADHD? Dr Tony Lloyd explains

ADHD and the new Code

The new SEN Code of Practice has wide-ranging implications, but what does it mean for children with ADHD? Dr Tony Lloyd explains

SEN code of practice

We are now working under a new Code of Practice for children with special needs and disabilities, but what does this mean and how will it affect your childminding provision?

SEN code of practice concerns

Having closed its consultation on a new code of practice for special educational needs, it is now vital that the government listens to the voices of the early years sector to ensure clarity and consistency.

SEN code of practice

Primary Teacher UpdateVol. 2013, No. 27 LettersSEN code of practiceSimone AspisSimone AspisSearch for more papers by this authorSimone AspisPublished Online:18 Nov 2013https://doi.org/10.12968/prtu.2013.1.27.54AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 1 December 2013Volume 2013Issue 27ISSN (print): 2047-8917ISSN (online): 2052-4609 Metrics History Published online 18 November 2013 Published in print 1 December 2013 Information© MA Education LimitedPDF download

The SEN Code of Practice explained

The government recently unveiled its proposed new SEN Code of Practice. Jane Friswell outlines the implications for state-maintained schools.

The SEN Code of Practice explained

The government recently unveiled its proposed new SEN Code of Practice. Jane Friswell outlines the implications for state-maintained schools.

The real implications of ‘benevolent’ SEN reform

Consultation of the DfE's Green Paper, Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs, provoked considerable debate among public and private sector professionals, parents and young people over the planned special educational needs reform. Since then, publication of the Children and Families Bill in 2013 indicates definitive changes in law, while the revised SEN Code of Practice, which will provide professional guidance, is awaited. There are implications to this reform beyond those which have already been published, although alluded to in the Green Paper. This article will explore the influence of language in the deconstruction of disability, the implications of raising the threshold before a categorisation of SEN applies, concerns arising from implementation of the Single Assessment Process and, finally, how funding reforms will negate some of the anticipated benefits for parents and their children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interpreting pupil participation into practice: contributions of the SEN Code of Practice (2001)

It is three years since the revised Code of Practice for special educational needs (Department for Education and Skills (DfES), 2001) was implemented within schools in England. In this document renewed emphasis was given to pupil participation, building upon and strengthening previous requirements. The inclusion of pupil participation in this document, which governs the ways in which schools must operate, provided cause for optimism by raising the status of the topic and embodying a tool by which to implement the participation rights of the child within the education system. This article scrutinises the sections on pupil participation within the Code for their potential to advance the field. It raises some crucial questions, opening up new areas for debate on the subject. It refers to research insights into participation from the perspective of pupils themselves to illustrate the issues being raised. The article calls for the participation of the pupils themselves to be acknowledged and accounted for, alongside current requirements that professionals encourage pupil participation and account for their perspectives.

The Protection of a Statement? Permanent exclusions and the SEN Code of Practice

The number of pupils with Statements who are permanently excluded from school has been identified as an issue in several national studies. This paper reports on a small-scale research project within one local education authority (LEA), aimed at identifying common factors and issues around the exclusion of Statemented pupils from mainstream schools. Key findings include a high rate of significant literacy and numeracy difficulties in the sample, limited communication between some schools and LEA support services, the schools' predominant use of Statements to provide in-class support from a learning support assistant rather than other more targeted interventions, and teachers' perceptions that no amount of increased funding through the Statement would have prevented the exclusion.

The revised SEN code of practice: What changes?

Olwyn Gunn looks at what changes the Special Educational Needs and Disability Rights in Education Bill will bring for teachers.

The SEN Code of Practice: Is it User‐Friendly?

The 1997 Green Paper (DfEE, 1997) refers to a new ‘Code of Practice’ to ‘be in place by the year 2002’. The present Code contains both principles and procedures, which LEAs and schools are expected to apply, and against which agencies will measure their performance. Yet how user‐friendly are they? In this article, a shortened version of a paper prepared as part of a National Research Project, Tony Bowers and David Wilkinson (from the School of Education, The University of Cambridge) consider evidence from past writings and research.

Well‐meant, but Failing on Almost all Counts: the Case Against Statementing

This article (written before the publication of the recent Green Paper) by Hugh Williams and Sheelagh Maloney, Senior Educational Psychologists: Birmingham Education Department, is timely as it provides practical solutions to the problems of ‘Statementing’. Their suggestions are not only within the spirit of the Paper, but go even further in suggesting practical solutions to the ending of ‘Statementing’. The approach proposed is based on extending the ideas behind the SEN Code of Practice, and they describe how children’s and parent’s rights, and their involvement, could be advanced through a fluent process: reduced bureaucracy; shorter time‐scales; and the greater involvement of schools in ensuring appropriate resources. Further, the proposed system would enhance the prospects of encouraging increasingly inclusive practices, and would remove a major conceptual barrier to all children being educated in mainstream schools.

Sense or nonsense? Dilemmas in the SEN Code of Practice

Special needs co‐ordinators and others will still be considering the Code of Practice and its implications. Although written in an apparently clear and straightforward fashion, the Code contains a number of ambiguities and poses some unanswered questions. Philip Garner sets out to identify these ‘dilemmas’. In particular, he accuses the authors of the Code of being long on advice and exhortation and weak on practical advice and support. He argues that teachers should still consider this to be a draft Code until matters are clarified and resources are allocated.