The Naïve SENDCo Series

In a mythical realm where harmony exists amongst the great thinkers of our era, sits a Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Assistant Headteacher

Okay, so it’s a bit of a mouthful. It doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as SENDCo, does it? But, the time for great change is upon us. Our villages need to align to unite our kingdom once and for all. It’s time for SENDCos to have a seat at the table.

Opening LinkedIn to check what post I was being tasked with given an expert opinion on (no thanks LinkedIn, I’d rather not), I was captured by the enticing post ‘No More SENDCos’ by Mike Ions. Immediately my shackles were up and teeth bared, ready to fight my corner. Why on earth should the mythical creature of the SENDCo be called into extinction? As ever, a tale I should know all to well being an English teacher, it was naïve of me to judge a book by it’s cover, so to speak. Mike was not in fact calling for the slaying of all SENDCos but instead raising a challenge about the status and authority of the role. A challenge that I whole-heartedly stand behind.

Doing the sensible thing, I put my weapons down and read his opinion piece; albeit properly this time. Within it, Mike highlights the discrepancies between the immense accountability of the leader of SEND and the lack of representation at SLT’s round table. As a SENDCo who does not have a seat at that particular table, I understand all to well the cavernous divide it can create between the vision of harmonious pastures and the reality of the battle-worn landscape.

In exploring this topic further, and in consideration of what is ‘required to truly embody the essence of effective leadership in this domain’, I began to deconstruct my role as SENDCo; the brief, so to speak, verses the intricacies of the daily maintenance of the SEND ship. The immeasurable labour that goes into keeping everything afloat is astounding, yet the the trivialised term ‘coordinator’ implies that the role is merely organising activities and playing nicely with others, or more commonly referred to as negotiating.

But, the role itself is much more than that. The role requires a knowledgeable, skilled warrior who exists only in the most the bone-chilling of tales. The role is no Disney remake, but a true Brothers Grimm epic story and therefore it demands the the status with which it is accountable for. And, yes I know that I am biased, but being in the pits of SEND politics it is clear that every fighter worth their salt commands more than that of a coordinator. While the role itself, does take a great deal of negotiation and organisation, it requires an individual with leadership grit.

But, this is where I must stand back from my allegiance with Mike’s battle strategy. It is at this juncture that Mike suggests the term ‘SEND and Inclusion Lead’ and whilst I appreciate the purpose behind this shift, I am unsure of its effectiveness in practice. I acknowledge that this may be down to the sceptic in me but…

Whilst linguistically speaking, I agree that the historical gravity of ‘Lead’ brings about advocacy and accountability for the role, the other parts give me the semantic itch.

In modern education, the term ‘inclusion’ has been adopted to pacify a whole host of issues within school settings. It is specific enough to demand an approach that encompasses support and involvement of all at its centre, but broad enough to allow the vines of necessity to worm their way around the role. By this, I mean that a SEND and Inclusion Lead would undoubtably be accountable for vastly more than just SEND and this responsibility area will continue to dilute until SEND is no longer the main arm of the strategy and approach. Think of it like this, how many schools do you know of that have a Behavioural Lead (as in SLT link) that is separate to the Inclusion Lead, or let’s say the DSL – whose role is not only mammoth but has catastrophic implications should they not be given the space or opportunity to function in their primary role.

This structure alone is historically born of necessity, in that we are all aware of the never-ending retention and recruitment crisis. Therefore roles need to be merged and responsibilities dead-lifted to drive forward an army on its knees. But putting the SENDCo at the forefront and in the immediate impact zone of the oncoming onslaught would be dire. It is a war they would not survive.

Should an official reconsideration of the role ever come into effect, and ‘Inclusion’ be attached to the role, there is the danger that it becomes more delegatory in nature than what is reasonable or sustainable. In essence the SEND and Inclusion Lead would be at risk of drowning and incapable of protecting all of those within their care.

Alright, I’ve had my say and argued for the coveted position at the strategic top table but I have also, potentially unfairly, lambasted the new suggested title without being thoughtful enough to bring my suggestions to the party. And, no I am not suggesting we go with the SEND AHT mouthful – we already have abbreviations coming out of our ears. But I cannot consciously bring about a new title without the moral certainty that it would be appropriate and thoughtful in its application.

In my final concluding thoughts, I would perhaps suggest that whilst the reform of the role is critical, it needs to be thoughtful protected against the dilution of necessity and additional responsibility.

Simply put, let the SEND Lead, lead SEND.