The impact of the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Code of Practice: 0-25 Years on relationships between SENCOs, parents and colleagues
The author used a small-scale survey, then interviewed two SENCOS, to explore the impact of the introduction of the 2015 Code of Practice, in terms of how SENCOs fitted into their school’s leadership team, how realistic were parents and colleagues’ expectations; and whether there had been more or less conflict with parents, and the causes of any conflict.
-
Theme: Strategic partnership working/leadership and governance
-
Strength: Good
-
Breadth of Impact: Robust
-
Status: Quality Assured
The author used a small-scale survey, then interviewed two SENCOS, to explore the impact of the introduction of the 2015 Code of Practice, in terms of how SENCOs fitted into their school’s leadership team, how realistic were parents and colleagues’ expectations; and whether there had been more or less conflict with parents, and the causes of any conflict.
They found that the 2015 CoP has not acknowledged SENCOs are the lynchpin that holds the team around the child together and ‘coordinates’ support for families. SENCOs are hugely influential in the parental experience. They also found that funding now being given directly to schools in order to make provision for children with SEND created tension, placing the SENCO in a mediatory role between parents, colleagues, health professionals and their local authority – a role in which relationships are key.
This grey literature was appraised using a validated checklist. The AACODS checklist provides guidance when dealing with diverse formats of grey literature (Tyndall, 2010). AACODS includes the following items: Authority (who is responsible for the intellectual content) – Accuracy – Coverage (parameters which define the content coverage i.e., reference to a particular population group, or certain type of publication) – Objectivity (identify bias, if it is unstated or unacknowledged) – Date (that confirms relevance of information)- Significance (value judgment in the context of the relevant research area). The checklist can be used for any discipline area and prioritises expert opinion and expertise over source format (Tyndall, 2010).