Special educational needs co‐ordinators: elements of the job in the light of the Code of Practice

Abstract

In England and Wales, the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs now places emphasis on the role of the special educational needs coordinator , or SENCO. Analyses the results of a study of 63 SENCOs, in primary and secondary schools in one urban local education authority in England. Examines status in school, levels of salary and time devoted to the role as well as the extent to which SENCOs managed other personnel, together with their reports on ways in which the use of resources was monitored within their schools. It appears that SENCOs' status is being recognized in many schools, not just by their salary levels but by the time which they have available to devote to their jobs. Administrative burdens brought by the Code of Practice are a continuing concern. Concludes that most SENCOs continue to view resource monitoring as an accounting exercise rather than one in which pupil involvement can be linked to expenditure on inputs.

Moving toward inclusion: Proceed with caution

“…In addition, staff who hold positions of responsibility for special education services in their own schools (eg. Special Needs Coordinators) report that they often have an administrative overload and a lack of status or power to influence such things as resource allocation and time tables (Bowers: 1996) There is also a fear that if full inclusion becomes the only accepted model for educating students with disabilities as we approach the year 2000, then special schools and classes may be abolished and alternative programs that have served certain students extremely well in the past may be lost for ever. Fortunately, evidence is beginning to appear in most states of an intention to retain special schools and special classes or units where necessary in order to have available a range of placement options for students whose special needs simply cannot be met in the regular classroom (Andrews: 1996).…”

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

“…It is likely that many of those in post before the Code did not carry out the duties now outlined. Bowers (1996a) traces the idea of 'co-ordination' of SEN in schools as stemming from Sewell (1982). It is therefore difficult to know whether the role has become bureaucratised by the Code or whether the Code has introduced ideas which have been responded to in bureaucratic or procedure-based ways.…”

“…The practical implementation of what is written in IEPs, the conduct of assessment through the process of teaching pupils (Solity & Raybould, 1988) and the guidance and oversight of support teachers and assistants are strongly linked with pupil contact. In a survey conducted at the end of 1995, Bowers (1996a) found that secondary SENCos devoted more than three quarters of their time to SENCo duties when contact and non-contact were combined; primary SENCos who were not heads or deputies spent more than eighty per cent of their time on such duties. 'Non-contact time' appears to represent time available during the teaching day for administration.…”

“…By this they presumably mean that SENCos were paid more than they otherwise might have been. In addition to Lewis et al (1996a), two studies (Bowers, 1996a; provide data on additional salary payments made to SENCos. In these, the modal salary addition for primary SENCos was two points and the first study reported that secondary SENCos were most frequently paid three additional points, which accords with the modal increments in Lewis et al's (1996a) findings.…”