55British Journal of Special Education Volume 26, No. 1 (March 1999)

Stan

dard

s fo

rSp

ecia

lists

Standards for specialists? A review of the proposalsfor teacher training for SEN specialists

Carol Miller and Jill Porter

IntroductionTwo consultation documents on SEN specialist teacherscame out at the end of November 1998. The first sets outproposed standards for specialist teachers of children withSEN (special educational needs); the second outlinespossible options for the delivery of training (TTA, 1998a;1998b). They were published only a few weeks beforeMeeting Special Educational Needs: a Programme ofAction (DfEE, 1998a), and it is pleasing that the autumnprovided so much to discuss in the field of specialeducation and such potential for positive development. Asusual, however, it has provided a curate’s egg, with goodand not-so-good parts and in particular it is important toconsider the links between the TTA (Teacher TrainingAgency) documents, the thinking in the Action Programmeand in the Green Paper, published in December, on thefuture of the teaching profession (DfEE, 1998b). It wouldappear, however, that there are several discrepancies.

The Action Programme has five main themes, amongstwhich the development of a more inclusive educationsystem and the development of the knowledge and skillsof practitioners have particular relevance for the TTAconsultation. A more inclusive education system meansthat LEAs (local education authorities), schools andteachers will need to be very clear about the processes ofinclusion; the relationship between mainstream and specialeducation will become stronger and more transparent; andall practitioners will have an important role to play. Thereare, therefore, implications for the knowledge and skillsof all teachers. The Action Programme ‘will encourage allteachers to undertake continuing professional developmentin special educational needs throughout their careers -from induction to headship’ (DfEE, 1998a, p.29). TheGreen Paper on the teaching profession re-emphasisesthat ‘teachers need training and support to do their jobswell and to progress in their careers’ (DfEE, 1998c, p.11)Both are significant statements.

The proposed standardsThe TTA (1998a) paper National Standards for SpecialEducational Needs (SEN) Specialist Teachers: Consultationsets out the Key purpose of SEN specialists; Key outcomesof specialised SEN provision; Core standards for SEN

specialists; Specialist standards; Skills and attributes; andStandards in relation to key roles and responsibilitiesundertaken by SEN specialists. This set of headings is notalways easy to understand and the links between them aresometimes obscure as it is difficult to see the relationshipbetween the proposals, and the realities of specialeducation.

A positive aspect of the draft Standards document,however, is its acknowledgement of the increasingnumbers of children with complex needs and the range ofsettings in which they will be educated. Furthermore, itrecognises the needs of children across the age range,and also accepts that, in addition to current mandatorytraining requirements for teachers of the deaf andteachers of children with visual and multi-sensoryimpairments, equal recognition is needed for thedevelopment of the expertise of teachers of childrenwith other SEN: autism; emotional and behaviouraldifficulties; physical disabilities; severe and profoundlearning difficulties; specific learning difficulties; andspeech, language and communication difficulties.Unfortunately, however, the TTA proposed Standards donot really aspire to the vision presented in the Programmeof Action which clearly states, ‘It is essential that trainingfor SEN specialists is an integral part of the overallframework for training and continuing professionaldevelopment’ (p.29 ). Clear continuity should thereforebe expected between the proposals for specialist teachersand the standards set out by the TTA for initial teachereducation and for special educational needs co-ordinators(SENCos). If all teachers are to be encouraged toundertake training at some level in SEN, there is aneed to set out the progression of knowledge, skillsand understanding in order that teachers can identify acareer path through to the development of specialisms.The TTA proposed ‘Standards document’ does not do soand the ideas for specialist teachers are particularlyconfused.

What is a specialist?In the TTA document, a specialist teacher is:

‘… a teacher working directly or indirectly withpupils with severe and complex forms of SEN. Theseteachers will have knowledge, understanding andskills in relation to their specialism and roles overand above those generally found amongst otherteachers.’

(p.4)

This definition is inadequate as it does not clarify thepoints at which a teacher can be considered a specialist;

Carol Miller and Jill Porter, of the School ofEducation, The University of Birmingham, providea penetrating critical response to the TeacherTraining Agency’s two consultation documents onSEN specialist teachers, which it is hoped willstimulate a wide-ranging debate.

56 British Journal of Special Education Volume 26, No. 1 (March 1999)

of great importance if the standards are to have anynational meaning. It also gives no indication of thedepth of knowledge or level of skill that a teachermust have before claiming to be a specialist. If, asenvisaged in the Action Programme, teachers are to beenabled both to work with the continuum of children’sneeds and to advise and support colleagues, they needto have a recognised depth of understanding in aspecialism - a particularly important point in view ofthe changing role of special schools and the increase ininclusive education. It is, therefore, questionablewhether the proposed standards would fulfil the statedintention to help clarify specialist roles and subsequentlygauge the extent of training and development needs.The proposals need to identify the clear expectationsof those teachers entering specialist areas of educationand those continuing to work in the field. It is not onlythe characteristics of the children which will determinethe need for specialists, but the settings in which they areeducated and in which teachers work.

A pick and mix approachThe TTA document provides examples of ‘Specificapplications’ of the skills of specialist teachersthrough case studies of ‘contexts’ and ‘roles’ in specialeducation. The individual examples detail many ofthe complexities facing individual teachers, but theydo not provide a realistic way in which teachers mightbuild up meaningful areas of specialism. The proposedpick-and-mix approach to the selection of specialiststandards would be unrealistic and undesirable for anindividual teacher as it would not guarantee sufficientin-depth knowledge, understanding or expertise to meetall of the needs of children requiring help in a particulararea of special education. There is a danger that thestandards, taken individually, represent a separation ofskill from understanding, and of understanding from skill,thus not equipping the teacher to carry out a specialistrole. It is also unfortunate and inappropriate that allthe case study examples in the TTA document includereferences to pupils with emotional and behaviouraldifficulties; the implication being that all children withSEN have such difficulties.

The value of standardsThe document does not give sufficient clarification of theways in which standards are to be used:

• How could LEAs use the standards in planning?• How would schools ensure that they could meet the

needs of particular groups of pupils?

Furthermore, schools will need to be clear about thedifferences required in the depth of specialist teachers’knowledge, skills and understanding. At one level,teachers will need to know how to access information;others will need to utilise it in their day-to-day work;while others will need to be able to advise and supportcolleagues in a range of situations. Further guidance isnecessary to enable LEAs, schools and teachers to makethese distinctions.

The TTA’s inability, or unwillingness, to define thespecialist SEN teacher and the point at which they couldbe regarded ‘as a specialist’ is a serious weakness in thedocument and is unhelpful at many levels. Again, LEAsand schools need clarification if they are to make adequatestaffing arrangements. Individual teachers must recogniseand be recognised for the depth of knowledge and skillthey require to be considered a specialist. Finally, butequally importantly, providers of professional developmentopportunities must also be sure of the level of programmeoffered. There has traditionally been a nationally-agreedmeasure that a specialist has undertaken the equivalent ofone year’s full-time additional training. Whilst time is notthe only measure, with an open-ended system reliant on apick-and-mix (or hit and miss) approach to standards, itwill be difficult to be sure who is a specialist teacher.

Effective provisionIn setting out its proposal, the TTA document also identifiesits view of elements of effective provision in terms ofpupils, SEN specialists, learning support assistants,governors, parents and inter-agency working. In manyways, it could be argued that there is greater clarity herethan there is about the specialist teachers, but how dothese characteristics link with the standards for specialistteachers? Most of the activities described for themshould, it is hoped, be seen in all teachers. For example,‘… ensure pupils access a broad and balanced curriculum…contribute to a positive and purposeful learning environment’(p.14). On the other hand, these teachers will ‘… co-operatesensitively with others in maintaining high quality schoollife for pupils who have degenerative conditions’ (p.14).The reference is bizarre and is the only mention of pupilswith SEN in the part of the paper which deals with theoutcomes of specialised SEN provision.

There are discrepancies between this document and theNational Standards for Special Educational NeedsCo-ordinators (TTA, 1998c), in which the features ofeffective co-ordination of SEN are different. For example,whereas the SENCo document includes reference to thepart played by headteachers, this does not constitute acomponent of effective provision in the new proposedstandards.

Core standardsThe TTA divides standards for specialist teachers ofchildren with SEN into those considered to be ‘core’ andthose which are ‘special’. This is a useful distinction andpotentially helpful in identifying general knowledge andskill for all specialist teachers, who would then go furtherin acquiring specific knowledge and skills for particularroles. However, the paper again demonstrates muddledthinking as the core standards are referred to as a‘foundation’, although no element of them appears essentialas a pick-and-mix menu approach is proposed. There is anassumption that these core elements are acquired first(if indeed they are to serve as a foundation) but manyheadteachers and HE (Higher Education) providerswould argue the need for some initial focus on thespecialism.

57British Journal of Special Education Volume 26, No. 1 (March 1999)

Many of the standards suggested as ‘core’ are requiredin all teachers. One example is: ‘understand changingperspectives of SEN as reflected in Government andlegislative contexts, for example, as discussed in theGreen Paper, Excellence for All Children (1997, p.16);another, ‘use ICT as a resource, for the management ofassessment records and as a means of assisting pupilsto apply academic, personal and social learning’ (p.18). Anotable omission from the core standards is any suggestionthat teachers of children with SEN should have a detailedknowledge of child development or of how children thinkand learn. It cannot yet be assumed of all teachers butboth are vital if special educational needs are to beidentified and supported.

There is also only scant mention of theory, exceptthat teachers should ‘appreciate the major theoreticalperspectives held by those who contribute to SENprogrammes’ (our italics) (p.18). If teachers are to beenabled to meet the needs of children along thecontinuum, they themselves must be equipped with anunderstanding of underlying theoretical rationales ofwhich their practice must show evidence. Additionally,they must be reflective practitioners, able to research theirown practice and that of others.

Specialist standards: a deficit modelFor many, there was some relief to see that the TTAproposes specialist standards as there will always bechildren who are entitled to specialist teachers if theirneeds are to be met and they are to gain full access to thecurriculum. The requirements, however, are identifiedlargely through the problems and characteristics ofchildren, and thus the TTA reverts to a deficit model ofSEN which practitioners have been trying to avoidfor many years. If teachers are to appreciate fully thesubstantial contribution they can make to children’slearning and achievement, the descriptions of eachdisability need to reflect the role of the environmentand its interactions with individual characteristics. It isalso important for teachers to recognise the continuumof needs within a particular group of pupils. Forexample, within a group of pupils described ashaving speech and language difficulties it will benecessary to work with those with delayed languageskills as well as those who experience specific‘disorders’. Specialist teachers must be availableacross the continuum, and consequently there shouldbe concern about the TTA’s decision to excludechildren with moderate learning difficulties fromaccess to teachers with specialist skills, knowledge andunderstanding.

Nine specialisms are identified in the document, and abrief perusal of the list of knowledge, understandingand skills under each of the headings suggests someinappropriate inclusions and serious omissions. There aresome specialist skills which should be expected of allteachers, for example, teachers of children with EBD(emotional and behavioural difficulties) will ‘usestrategies appropriately to develop self-esteem and to

promote better application to academic and otherlearning’ (p.24); and teachers of children with speechand language difficulties will ‘use clear oral andnon-verbal communication in teaching and othercontexts’ (p.31). There is no suggestion that teachers ofchildren with specific learning difficulties will have anyknowledge of the nature of specific learning difficulties,and for teachers of pupils with EBD, the main theoreticalperspective appears to be Behaviourism. It is difficultto see the rationale behind these lists, despite thegroundwork provided in the SENTC Report (SENTC,1996).

Options for deliveryThe second paper, Options for the Delivery of Trainingfor Special Educational Needs (SEN) Specialists(TTA, 1998b), sets out a useful critique of the currentcontext, with laudable aims to promote quality andmore equal access to professional developmentopportunities for teachers. The specific Optionsproposed, however, suggest restricted ideas for training.The Options seem to exclude references to all currentmechanisms for quality assurance, for example:inspection by Ofsted of both schools and highereducation institutions; external examiner arrangements;the current bidding processes for both LEAs andHEIs (Higher Education Institutions) for TTAfunding for CPD (Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment); internal procedures in institutions ofhigher education. The Options range from those inwhich TTA undertakes all the assessment of students’work to those in which it prescribes the programme,licences the providers and assesses the students’ work.Apart from such educationally unsound proposals,the possibility of responding to local contexts andissues, in addition to national standards, are alsoprecluded. The proposals need to be seen in the lightof the suggestions within the Green Paper on theteaching profession as a whole for the introduction of aNational Code of Practice for training providers togetherwith a new inspection programme (DfEE, 1998b).There is little evidence that centrally specified trainingwould lead to equal quality across all provision. Amore positive option might be to set criteria for qualityassurance centrally which would enable providers to seekrecognition.

By the time this article is published, the consultationperiod will be over and it is hoped that the approachselected will be one that ensures that ‘teachers arefully (our italics) prepared to meet their new roles andresponsibilities’ (SENTC, 1996, p.2). What is needed isa system that provides both accessibility (if we are toincrease the numbers of teachers with appropriatelevels of understanding and skill) and the flexibilityto enable diverse needs to be met. It is, however,essential for this system to have the hallmark of integrityrather than producing a diluted, centrally prescribedassortment of training packages. The specialist (SEN)teacher has an important part to play in a vision of thefuture.

58 British Journal of Special Education Volume 26, No. 1 (March 1999)

ReferencesDepartment for Education and Employment (1997)

Excellence for All Children: Meeting SpecialEducational Needs. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (1998a)Meeting Special Educational Needs: a Programme ofAction. London: DfEE.

Department for Education and Employment (1998b) Teachers:Meeting the Challenge of Change. London: DfEE.

Department for Education and Employment (1998c)Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change(Summary). London: DfEE.

SENTC (1996) Professional Development to meet SpecialEducational Needs: Report to the Department forEducation and Employment. Stafford: SpecialEducational Needs Training Consortium.

TTA (1998a) National Standards for SpecialEducational Needs (SEN) Specialist Teachers:Consultation. London: Teacher Training Agency.

TTA (1998b) Options for the Delivery of Training forSpecial Educational Needs (SEN) Specialists:Consultation. London: Teacher Training Agency.

TTA (1998c) National Standards for SpecialEducational Needs Co-ordinators. London: TeacherTraining Agency.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Address for correspondenceCarol MillerSchool of EducationThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonBirmingham B15 2TTEmail: C.J.Miller@bham.ac.uk

Accepted for Publication: December 1998