“In response to large between-schools differences in SEND identification, we recommend that training in child development and different types of SEND should be mandatory in initial teacher training and early career development, and prioritised in development for experienced teachers. Such training is not currently part of the core content framework requirements.”
Identifying SEND: Final Report on Special Educational Needs & Disabilities, Hutchinson, Downs & Ford (2025) SEND-Final-Report-version-FINAL-04.02.2024-2.pdf
After a busy September working with teachers at the very start of their journey, and hearing inclusion conversations across many school visits, this recommendation resonated strongly with me. It encouraged me to reflect on my own professional development, and on the way I plan learning for both pupils and teachers moving forward.
When we look at outcomes from schools where the SEND gap is narrowing, it raises an important question: what really makes the difference? Is it the way we know individuals? Is it how we understand differences in how people interact with the world? Is it the curriculum we plan, or the way we adapt in response to learners’ needs?
Over the past month, in discussions with trainee teachers reflecting on their observations, and with subject leaders considering their science teams, I’ve found myself returning to three key questions:
- Where does our understanding of barriers to learning come from – both for pupils and for teachers?
- How do we take time to recognise these barriers and plan approaches to help overcome them?
- How can we share our own barriers to learning and facilitate opportunities for others to reflect on theirs?
As curriculum experts, we often fall back on subject knowledge, and of course, that matters. But we also need to ask whether we miss opportunities to consider learning barriers and how others see and interact with the world. Do we truly evaluate whether the activities and behaviours we plan are adapted – either in the moment or beforehand, to support all learners in the room?
For me, inclusion is less about something we “do” and more about something we “be.”
- Be adaptable – in curriculum and in methods.
- Be personal – see the individual, not the category.
- Be available – balance independence with support.
- Be relatable – in communication, culture and school approach.
This way of being came alive for me in two very different teaching contexts. While delivering a summer course, a colleague said: “Can I replay that back to you to help me organise my thinking?” By adapting my method in that moment, and encouraging openness in the room, learners were able to process new ideas in ways that worked for them.
In a school chemistry lesson, I saw the same principles at work. I framed the learning questions around students’ current understanding, supported with images and models. Before the practical began, we discussed the equipment. Some students then used visual prompts for the method, while others worked collaboratively to support each other. The result? Creative solutions and learning outcomes that I could never have scripted in advance.
As I look ahead to SL233, where we’ll be exploring inclusion further, I’ll be considering how the identification of barriers, and how we choose to be in the classroom can shape every session.
So my question for you is this: What will you be when you are involved in learning activities?
Victoria Rigby is a Professional Development Leader at STEM Learning, specialising in science education and teacher development. She works with teachers and school leaders to design inclusive learning experiences, with a particular focus on supporting effective practice in science classrooms. View Victoria’s STEM Learning profile ›