Inclusion Will be The Frontline in Mainstream Schools
(A Pyrrhic Victory)
My Cynical Optimism
In this previous post I outlined all the changes coming our way from Ofsted and the DfE.
I think school leaders will be able to keep improving their schools, either because of, or despite these changes.
The main problems facing school leaders are still funding, HR, attendance of students and staff and Ofsted and none of these changes will make a dent in any of those.
Except one.
The drive to more inclusion in schools is going to break them. The government has looked at the ‘black hole’ they call the SEND budget, and instead of filling the hole, they are picking it up, chopping it into little pieces, and passing that black hole into mainstream schools in the hope this will fill it.
There are many causes for the huge increase in the SEND budget. The obvious one is the ludicrous idea that we are all on a continuum, so that a third of students now have access arrangements for exams, and EHCPs are proliferating like bad debts in the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, or Covid on a cruise ship.
But that is not the cause. The cause is the refusal to fund councils so that they can build special schools. This has forced councils to seek short term fixes - buying special school places elsewhere. This has created a market, into which private equity has stepped with nimble feet and large nets.
It is not unusual for local authorities to pay way more than £100,000 per student, even £200,000. Nor is it unusual for the private equity firm running the special school to cream off 50% as profit.
The cost of profiteering is paid for by us three time - once in our taxes, twice in the decline of council services, and now three times in the devastation this will bring to schools.
The logic for schools is to build the best SEND provision they can, and then hide it from the parents. Impossible, right?
So, this is what I predict:
I know I can’t provide brilliant SEND provision, because if I do, every parent of an SEND child will send them to my school. Demand will outstrip my resources, and the knock on effect will be lower progress for everyone - the SEND students who are now too numerous to help efficiently, and the other students who will suffer from the changes in classroom expectations and behaviour caused by the biggest growth in SEND, SEHM.
So, I make sure my SEND provision is brilliant for only one kind of student, probably autism, because I can get a resource base and we can learn to address their behaviours. SEMH students are not like that.
Or I pick anxious students who are at risk of being school refusers.
Or I go full cynic.
Inclusion will be a single judgement - probably one of 10! Judgements will be reported separately, with no overall grade. So, it is not going to be a limiting judgment.
How do I stop the financial black hole opening up in my school? How do I stop diverting all of my other resources into SEND? I seek good and outstanding judgements in every category, except SEND, where the new gold standard will become ‘requires improvement’.
Parents, send your children somewhere else.
What does NotebookLM think - can it save me from this view?
(I uploaded the recent speeches by Sir Martyn and I-need-no-introduction Bridget into NotebookLM)
Unforeseen Repercussions: Unintended Consequences of Ofsted's Transformation
The sources suggest a range of potential unintended consequences stemming from the planned changes to Ofsted.
Unintended consequences of a greater emphasis on inclusion:
While promoting inclusivity is a laudable goal, the way it is assessed and implemented could have unintended consequences. Schools may feel pressured to reduce exclusions, even when they are necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of all students [9].
This could lead to challenging behavior going unaddressed, disrupting learning environments, and ultimately harming the very students the policy aims to protect.
The sources do not provide specific details on how Ofsted plans to assess inclusion, leaving room for speculation and potential misinterpretation by schools.
The italics are my emphasis - perhaps I am misinterpreting in my speculation. You decide.
Here are the other unintended consequences, where my optimism kicks in. I think good leaders can avoid this problems easily.
Escalating pressure and workload for school leaders and staff:
The sources indicate a move toward a more nuanced inspection process [1-4].
School leaders and staff may face increased pressure to prepare for these multifaceted inspections, potentially leading to increased workload and stress. Sir Martyn Oliver acknowledges the potential for stress and encourages a collaborative approach to inspection [5, 6].
Potential for gaming the system and a narrow focus on inspection criteria:
The introduction of new inspection criteria, particularly those focused on measurable outcomes, could inadvertently incentivise schools to prioritise activities that directly address these criteria, potentially at the expense of broader educational goals.
This could lead to a narrowing of the curriculum and a focus on teaching to the test rather than fostering deeper learning and student well-being [7].
Sir Kevan Collins expresses concern about a "compliance culture" in some schools, where teachers are told precisely what to do, even down to the slide deck they should use in every lesson [8].
This type of culture could be amplified if schools feel pressured to meet specific inspection criteria, potentially undermining the government's goal of promoting a more holistic and child-centered approach to education.Increased anxiety and uncertainty during the transition period:
The details of the new inspection framework are still under development and will be subject to consultation [10, 13].
This period of transition, with its evolving expectations and potential for misinterpretations, could lead to increased stress and anxiety for those being inspected.
Potential for inconsistent judgments and interpretations:
With the removal of single headline grades and the introduction of more nuanced inspection reports, there is an increased risk of inconsistent judgments and interpretations by inspectors.
The sources emphasise the importance of training and professional development for inspectors to ensure consistency [14, 15].
However, the move toward more qualitative judgments inherently introduces a greater degree of subjectivity, potentially leading to variations in how different inspectors assess the same evidence.
This could result in unfair comparisons between schools and undermine the credibility of the inspection system.
What Next?
We are all biased.
We tend to build leadership teams in our own image, so our biases are multiplied.
One way of introducing diversity is to feed complexity into NotebookLM. ‘Here’s all the noise we are trying to listen to … let me ask you for a logical, balanced interpretation’ and we can introduce you as an extra voice on our SLT.
Get brilliant at SEND, and work out a way to hide this from parents.