Study

last updated:February 2007

What aspects of inclusion did the study focus upon?
The researchers analysed data from the 2002 National Pupil Database (NPD), which brought together data on pupils’ attainments in national assessments and a number of characteristics relevant to their education including, the school they attended, their gender, their entitlement to free school meals (FSM) and their special educational needs (SEN) status, to see if there was any evidence that inclusion:

• has an effect on attainment at LEA and at school level
• has different effects on the attainments of different groups of pupils.

The researchers also conducted 16 case studies in highly inclusive schools (schools with a high percentage of SEN pupils – between 16% and 50% of pupils with and without statements) to investigate:

the strategies and forms of organisation highly inclusive schools used to manage inclusion
any impacts inclusion has over and beyond the attainments captured in national assessments.

We start our RfT summary by detailing the ways the highly inclusive schools managed inclusion, then look at which groups of pupils are ‘at risk’ of low attainment and the findings from the NPD data.

How did highly inclusive schools manage inclusion?
Highly inclusive schools appeared to manage inclusion in broadly similar ways and in ways which seemed likely to reduce any negative impact inclusion might have on attainment. The strategies included:

• a commitment to inclusion
• careful individual monitoring
• flexible grouping and provision customised to individual circumstances
• high quality teaching
• strategies for raising achievement levels generally.

The researchers did not suggest that this was a model of ‘best practice’, simply that these were strategies they found happening in schools that were managing large numbers of pupils with high levels of SEN alongside pupils with no identified SEN. 

The researchers also pointed out that these strategies for managing inclusion did not explain the difference in performance levels between the highly inclusive schools. Both higher and lower performing schools managed inclusion in similar ways, but it did appear that the lower performing schools were not as flexible in their provision as the higher performing schools.  The researchers indicated that differences between higher and lower-performing inclusive schools may have been caused by other factors, such as the type of SEN and characteristics of pupils without SEN.

The researchers suggested it was useful to think in terms of an ‘ecology’ of inclusion.  Teaching children with higher levels of SEN places considerable demands on schools and on teachers.  Where schools have relatively high proportions of such pupils, there appears to be a delicate balance between the resources they can bring to the task of teaching and the demands which these children create.  The researchers pointed out that it may not take much to disturb the ecology – a shortfall in classroom support, a weakness in teacher skills or managerial planning etc.  Their observation suggests the need for schools to continually monitor how effectively their SEN resources are being targeted, especially where there are significant numbers of SEN pupils.

What difference did having a school-level commitment to inclusion make?   
For highly inclusive schools, being committed to inclusion meant wanting to do the best for all the children.  Some highly inclusive schools, showed their commitment to inclusion explicitly.  For example, one school displayed photos around the school of many diverse pairs of pupils with the slogan, ‘All different – All equal’.  In other schools, the commitment was expressed less overtly, but was evident in practice, for example, by resourcing SEN provision appropriately and using the resources to benefit a wide range of children.

The broad commitment to inclusion was also reflected in the school ethos.  Where an attitude of welcome prevailed amongst the staff, there was evidence that the children shared it.  One headteacher gave this example:

‘Most of our children will just accept that there are children here who have different abilities to other children.  We noticed that fairly recently when one of our local schools closed down and dispersed a number of children … you could tell that they hadn’t come through the school with the same kind of response to children with difficulties that the children who’ve come through this school have … we found these new children were sniggering [at a boy with cerebral palsy walking down the corridor].  He had never encountered that in school before and he was obviously quite upset’.

Practitioners may like to read case study 1 which explored factors that enabled the effective inclusion of pupils with particular special needs – Down’s syndrome.

In schools that showed a commitment to inclusive principles, staff tended to accept the task of educating pupils with SEN as part of their normal responsibilities.  But being committed to the principle of inclusion was not to say that the schools did not experience problems and difficulties with the practicalities of inclusion.  There were teachers and TAs who believed SEN pupils disrupted the learning of other pupils, drew attention to the inappropriate nature of the curriculum as they saw it and pointed out the difficulty of providing individual attention in the context of large classes.  However, whilst staff in both higher and lower-performing schools expressed these concerns, the researchers highlighted a subtle difference in their outlook – staff in lower-performing schools seemed to see themselves as facing somewhat greater challenges than their counterparts in the higher-performing schools.

We look at the challenges faced by teachers in highly inclusive schools in more detail on a later page.

How did highly inclusive schools achieve flexible provision?
None of the highly inclusive schools had a system in which all SEN pupils were taught in mainstream classrooms for the whole of the school week. Typically, schools used a mixture of:

• unsupported mainstream class placement
• supported mainstream class placement
• small group or one-to-one teaching outside the mainstream class.

Schools achieved flexible provision in a number of ways.  For example, one secondary school had a unit for pupils with moderate learning difficulties.  However, the unit was used as a withdrawal base rather than as a separate form of provision.  Pupils had individual timetables governing this withdrawal.  For the remainder of the time, they were placed in mixed-attainment classes, although they tended to be concentrated in two classes in years 7 and 8 so that support could be focused on these groups.

One primary school achieved flexibility through running booster classes and other systems of small group support.  A teacher was employed to take booster classes in English, mathematics and science for Y5 and Y6 during the day and after school ‘challenge’ classes.  Sometimes, SEN children were involved in these classes.  Lower down in the school, support was provided for lower attaining pupils in the form of small groups with teaching assistants.  The support was not fixed – the children were moved about and taken in and out of groups.  Support was not provided for a predetermined length of time or always during the same lessons.  The pupils commented on the benefits of this flexible approach as they saw them:

‘Those who go to booster classes are given help to catch up with what’s been going on’.

‘Sometimes the timetable is changed so children miss different lessons different weeks’.

Flexible provision meant that pupils tended to be monitored carefully and individually.  Most of the schools had sophisticated systems for tracking individual progress and basing interventions on an analysis of what they might reasonably expect of the children.  Often, the assessment and planning systems for the children identified as having SEN were simply more detailed versions of the planning systems that were in place for all pupils.  A significant part of the assessment and planning that took place was based upon teacher judgements about what would benefit particular children, as well as hard data, such as attainments on tests.

As this teacher explained:

‘The key is making sure all get what they need, not that all get the same – everyone having access to what they need in order to achieve’.

How did teaching assistants help?
The flexible provision offered by highly inclusive schools demanded that teaching assistants (TAs) played an important role in breaking down what might otherwise be rigid systems of grouping by:

• offering in-class support
• working with individuals and small groups on a withdrawal basis
• staffing resource bases and special classes.

To help TAs to carry out their role effectively, many schools trained their TAs to a high level and ensured that their work was planned carefully with teachers.  For example, one primary school had twenty-four support staff, most of whom had been trained while in the school.  The school supplemented basic training courses provided by the LEA by inviting specialists in to provide training on more complex teaching and learning strategies.   In another school, all TAs were trained in literacy development and were qualified in providing early literacy support. Practitioners may like to read case study 2 where TAs who had received specific training delivered effective literacy interventions to ‘at risk’ Year 1 children.

Resourcing was often troublesome for schools, but did not necessarily prevent them from finding ways to manage inclusion flexibly.  Some schools made deliberate decisions to resource SEN provision above the levels of designated funding in the school budget.  Many schools were skilled at striking the delicate balance of matching the available resources to the amount of support needed by their SEN pupils.  Their strategies included:

• deploying TAs who were ‘supporting’ one pupil in such a way that they could benefit other pupils
• allocating TAs to subject departments rather than to individual pupils
• pairing pupils entitled to support so that they could share support over a longer period. 

Strategies such as these gave schools a degree of flexibility in responding to a range of demands that would have been difficult to achieve otherwise.

What kind of teaching was effective in highly inclusive schools?
The researchers found nothing unusual about the teaching techniques or classroom organisation in highly inclusive schools, apart from an increased access to TAs (for the reasons explained on our earlier page about TAs).  Effective classroom practice was simply the sort of good teaching that can be found in many schools – whether highly inclusive, or not.  Teachers used familiar techniques to enhance the sorts of flexibility and individual responsiveness that was characteristic of the provision in these schools.  For example:

• lessons were well prepared
• behaviour was well-managed (with a range of discipline styles from firm to relatively relaxed)
• expectations of the children were high in terms of learning and behaviour
• support was well targeted
• relationships between staff and children were supportive and positive
• children across the attainment range participated in lessons and levels of motivation and engagement were generally high
• staff praised the efforts and achievements made by children and teachers accorded equal value to the different achievements of all the children
• children covered the same curriculum though tasks were differentiated
• lessons included a variety of tasks.

The teachers used a variety of strategies, such as whole class teaching, group work and individual work with and without adult support.  However, an important common feature was that the teachers mixed and matched the strategies to what they saw as particular pupils’ needs at particular times.  Just as good systems of pupil monitoring were key to a school’s ability to operate flexibly, so teachers needed to know their pupils well to teach them in a flexible way.

This is not a counsel of perfection, however.  The researchers pointed out that not all the teaching observed in the higher performing schools was high quality and good teaching was not confined to the most ‘inclusive’ settings.

What strategies did highly inclusive schools use to raise achievement?
All the highly inclusive schools developed strategies for raising achievement.  These included strategies for:

• raising overall achievement levels
• meeting specific target attainment levels in a more instrumental way
• remedying perceived weaknesses in pupils’ skills.

These strategies were not exclusive to the inclusion agenda.  For example, some were aimed at pupils not identified as having SEN and some were more general strategies that aimed to benefit pupils with SEN alongside their peers.  However, the strategies were interwoven with strategies for managing inclusion at school and classroom level.
Raising overall achievement levels

The highly inclusive schools tended to have explicit strategies for raising achievement generally. For example, one school had achieved an upturn in its performance in national assessments through focusing on raising the quality of teaching.  Teachers were required to follow the multi-part lesson plan recommended in the Key Stage 3 strategy with all classes, regardless of the level of SEN.  In some cases, strategies focused on offering a well-balanced or more exciting curriculum.  Strategies such as these were not focused on a specific group and were likely to benefit all of the school’s pupils.

Meeting target attainment levels
Some strategies focused on raising measured attainment.  By and large, these strategies were not focused on pupils regarded as having SEN, but on pupils who were borderline of target attainment levels.  For example, in one school, there were targeted interventions for pupils in year 9 on the borderline of level 5.  These included after-school teaching of science topics known to be particularly difficult and the delegation of staff to send text messages to likely absentees on the morning of examinations.

Remedying perceived weaknesses in pupils’ skills
Strategies focused on the perceived weaknesses in pupils’ skills were not specifically targeted at SEN pupils, though they might be expected to share the weaknesses of their peers and were therefore also likely to benefit.  For example, teachers in a school serving a highly disadvantaged area focused on the development of oracy during circle time.  The teachers felt that there was a problem with the development of oracy skills in the home and that this was having an impact on the ability of a wide range of children to do well in literacy.

Practitioners may like to read case study 3 about how teachers in a school set about improving all their pupils’ literacy skills, but focusing specifically on boys’ writing skills.

What particular challenges did teachers working in highly inclusive schools face?
Many teachers were positive about inclusion and felt that it brought advantages.  They commented that SEN pupils benefited from access to the mainstream while other pupils benefited from the additional resources brought into school and teachers frequently pointed to the social gains for all children.

However, teachers faced problems in the classroom that threatened the positive relationship between inclusion and achievement.  They viewed managing behaviours that disrupted lessons a particularly difficult aspect of dealing with children with SEN in the context of raising attainment.  In some cases the problem was relatively minor and well contained.  For example, one teacher described the problem of noise made by autistic children in her class.  She described how, if one of these pupils was very loud, she felt she had to raise her own voice and the ‘whole atmosphere’ in her class consequently became too loud.  Nevertheless, because the other children were used to the pupil, it did not appear to be a major problem – generally, the children ‘switched off’ from the shouting and their learning was not affected.

Elsewhere, the problem appeared to be more widespread, as this teacher explained:

‘This school has a high percentage of EBD [emotional and behavioural difficulties].  It is this group which, for a variety of reasons, causes most disruption … This has a detrimental effect on the learning of the other children, as the quality teaching they deserve is sometimes lost in the amount of time needed to deal with incidents in the classroom’.

The researchers pointed out that although they saw incidents where pupil behaviour disrupted learning, they also saw similar incidents where teachers and TAs successfully averted problems or dealt with them quietly and efficiently, such that the incidents were unlikely to interrupt learning.

The researchers did not explore strategies for managing pupils’ disruptive behaviour.  Practitioners may like to read our earlier RfT summary of a systematic review of strategies for managing the behaviour of pupils with EBD.

How did pupils view being in highly inclusive schools?
The researchers sought the views of pupils, both with and without SEN, about their learning and achievements, and asked them whom they preferred to work with in their class.

Learning
For the most part, pupils both with and without SEN felt that they were achieving well and that the work was at an appropriate pace.  However, fewer pupils with SEN than without SEN, particularly in secondary schools, felt their work was good or set at an appropriate pace. There was no indication that pupils without SEN felt that having higher numbers of SEN pupils in the school interfered with their learning. Where other pupils did interfere, the problem lay with classmates who ‘distract me’ – but these were not necessarily pupils with SEN.  There was a feeling amongst the pupils that those who struggled most had the most help, but also a sense that all pupils could get help if they needed it.

Popularity
There were a few differences between pupils with and without SEN regarding class preferences for working partners.  It appeared that pupils with higher levels of SEN were less likely to be chosen as preferred working partners by their classmates than other pupils.  Whilst a quarter to a third of SEN pupils were socially isolated, less than one-seventh of pupils without SEN fell into this category.

Practitioners may find it helpful to read  a  case study that evaluated an intervention (the ‘Circle of Friends’ approach) to enhance the social acceptance of classmates with emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Which pupils are ‘at risk’ of lower attainment?
When carrying out their statistical analysis of the NPD data, the researchers separated the impacts of school inclusion policies from those of other independent variables known to be linked to attainment at the aggregate level, including pupils’ gender, eligibility for free school meals (FSM), ethnicity, mother tongue and birth month.  They found:

• gender –  the ratio of boys to girls identified as having SEN was about two to one across all key stages.  For example, at KS1 around 14% of boys and 8% of girls had SEN (without statements).  By KS4, less pupils were identified as having SEN (without statements), but the ratio of boys to girls was about the same (9% of boys compared with 5% of girls)
• eligibility for FSM – overall, pupils who were eligible for FSM were twice as likely as their peers to be identified as having SEN.  For example, at KS1 around 36% of pupils eligible for FSM had SEN (without a statement) compared with 18.5% of pupils not eligible for FSM
• ethnicity – generally, pupils in Black African, Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic groups were more likely than their peers to be identified as having SEN (without statements) across all key stages, but this trend was not apparent for pupils with statements
• English as a second language – at all key stages, pupils whose mother tongue was not English were slightly more likely than their peers to be identified as having SEN without statements, but slightly less likely than their peers to have a statement of SEN
• birth month – pupils born in the summer were more likely to be identified as having SEN across all the key stages.  This was particularly marked at KS1, with nearly 30% of August born pupils being identified as having SEN (without statements).

Clearly, being male, young for the year-group, entitled to free school meals, from particular ethnic groups and with a mother tongue other than English increases the statistical likelihood of having difficulties with learning and subsequent low attainment.  The challenge for teachers is to identify pupils who are at risk of low attainment and give them the additional help they may need.  Practitioners may like to read case study 5 on a teacher who noticed that a group of Pakistani students were falling behind in science and how she went about closing the gap in their attainment.

Did the researchers find a relationship between inclusion and attainment?
The researchers found that by and large, inclusion did not appear to significantly depress the achievement of other pupils, although the overall figures do suggest this is a risk in some schools.

At LEA level
The researchers found no evidence of a relationship between inclusion and attainment at LEA level.  An LEA’s policy in terms of the proportion of SEN pupils educated in mainstream schools seemed to have no bearing on overall levels of attainment in schools in that LEA.

At school level
The researchers found that schools with high levels of inclusion were slightly more likely to have lower levels of attainment.  However, they indicated that the relationship between the level of school inclusivity and attainment was unlikely to be causal because:

• there was considerable variation in the performance of schools with similar levels of inclusivity
• schools with higher levels of inclusion tend to serve more disadvantaged and therefore lower attaining pupils.  In other words, the association is not causal – children with some kinds of special educational need are by definition less likely to score highly on academic attainment tests, and inevitably, this will be reflected in their schools’ aggregate raw scores.  It does not follow that all SEN is about an inherent incapacity to achieve academically at the highest levels. 

For pupils
The researchers found some evidence that including pupils with SEN was associated with slightly lower attainment levels at the level of individual pupils, although the impact was very variable:

• at secondary level, pupils without SEN were slightly more likely to attain at a lower level than pupils with SEN
• at Key Stage 1, the reverse was the case
• there was no clear relationship at Key stage 2
• the impact was more marked for schools with lower levels of inclusivity than those with higher levels.

The researchers suggested that the variation in impact of inclusivity at different key stages could be explained by factors such as different SEN identification practices at different key stages.

The researchers emphasised that their findings indicated inclusion accounted for a very small proportion of the depression of pupils’ scores, and the effect of inclusion on pupil achievement was less than that of other variables, such as entitlement to free school meals or English as an additional language.

How was the research designed?
The researchers analysed data from the National Pupil Database (NPD) obtained in 2002, which included information on over 500,000 pupils in mainstream schools at each key stage.  The researchers used multi-level modelling techniques to explore the effect of different variables:

• proportion of pupils with SEN in schools
• pupil attainment
• pupil progress
• gender
• entitlement to free school meals
• ethnic group
• pupil’s mother tongue
• SEN status.

on pupils’ average points scores in national assessments and examinations. The techniques made it possible to explore the effect of each variable, taking all the other variables into account.

The researchers also made an in-depth study of sixteen highly inclusive schools – schools with a high proportion of SEN pupils (16% – 50% with and without statements).  Eight of the schools were primary and eight were secondary schools.  The schools were mostly identified from the NPD data.  The schools varied in terms of:

• the number of pupils on the school roll
• level of attainment
• whether of not they were specially resourced
• types of SEN in their school populations and the proportions of each type
• levels of FSM entitlement
• the length of time they had been inclusive for
• geographical location.

The schools were chosen because the percentage of pupils with high levels of SEN was disproportionate relative to other schools in the same FSM band.  They were not chosen because they had a reputation for effective inclusive practices. Twelve of the schools (six primary and six secondary) were chosen as being high-performing in terms of the average measured attainments of their pupils.  Four schools were chosen because they were lower-performing.

In each school, the researchers interviewed teachers, headteachers, other staff and pupils and administered questionnaires where possible to staff and pupils.  They also made focused lesson observations and collected school documents (Ofsted reports, reports to governors etc).

What are the implications of the study for practitioners?
This study’s findings suggest that teachers need not regard the challenges of raising attainment and including more SEN children as incompatible.  It is possible to see inclusion as an opportunity to improve the education for all children for the majority of schools.

Teachers may like to consider the following implications for practice in acting out the messages of this study:

The study highlighted the importance of flexible grouping and timetabling to enable all pupils to get the help they need to achieve? Are there ways you could make the grouping arrangements in the classes you teach more flexible?

The researchers highlighted the importance of TAs being involved in planning SEN pupils’ work.  We gave examples of joint planning between teachers and TAs in the case study section.  Would it be possible to set aside time to plan activities with your TAs, perhaps rotating with other teachers to give everyone time to do this?

Our case study section contains examples of how teachers developed strategies designed to raise the attainment of particular ‘at risk’ groups of pupils – EAL learners in science and boys’ writing skills.  Have you noticed a particular group, or groups of students who seem to be falling behind in the classes you teach?  Would you find it helpful to investigate strategies you could use to help them?

The study indicated that SEN pupils are at risk of social isolation, and in our case study section we report on ways of enhancing the social acceptance of SEN pupils. Could you do more to help SEN pupils in the classes you teach make friends with their classmates?

Leaders may like to consider the following implications:

The researchers pointed out how managing inclusion involves a delicate balance between the resources schools can bring to the task of teaching and the demands which SEN children create.  Could you do more to monitor how effectively your school targets its SEN resources?

All teachers would probably find it helpful to share ideas of how flexible grouping arrangements can be achieved and how TAs could be best deployed in your school.  Could time be allocated on the agendas for meetings to discuss these issues?
Could you create opportunities for all teachers to learn how to help, support and develop TAs’ practice, perhaps through coaching and mentoring? Practitioners will find the National Union of Teachers’ A-Z of peer coaching and the coaching materials in the National Strategy handbook (see further reading) helpful.

In the case study section we gave examples of how teachers developed strategies designed to raise the attainment of particular ‘at risk’ groups of pupils. Could you do more to encourage and support colleagues to design and carry out small-scale research projects to help investigate ways of raising attainment for particular groups of pupils in your school?

The study highlighted how the management of disruptive behaviour is the most challenging aspect of inclusion for many teachers.  Would your colleagues find it helpful to be given more opportunities to discuss and reflect upon the behaviour challenges they face, the causes of the problem behaviours and ways of tackling them?

Filling in the gaps
Gaps that are uncovered in a piece of research also have a useful role in making sure that future research builds cumulatively on what is known.   But research also needs to inform practice, so practitioners’ interpretation of the gaps and follow-up questions are crucial.  The researchers suggested three kinds of studies would usefully supplement their research:

• repeating the study with NPD data for different years – there is now data available on ‘type’ of SEN.  This kind of study would test whether the findings for the whole SEN population hold good for each of the SEN types
• longitudinal studies drawing on the NPD to investigate whether the ‘snapshot’ recorded by the study represents a stable state of affairs
• more school case studies, especially longitudinal case studies.

What is your experience?
Do you have any evidence regarding the impact of inclusion on attainment in your school? Do you have action research or enquiry based development programmes running that explore, for example, raising the attainment of a group of pupils who are falling behind, effective ways of working with TAs, or promoting the social inclusion of SEN pupils.  We would be interested to hear about examples of effective inclusion practices, which we could perhaps feature in our case study section.

Your feedback
Have you found this study to be useful? Have you used any aspect of this research in your own classroom teaching practice? We would like to hear your feedback on this study. To share your views with us please email: research@gtce.org.uk