3 critical shifts for SEND reform success in EYFS

The proposed reforms to special educational needs and disabilities support could reshape early years education more profoundly than any policy change in a generation.

Much of the debate about the proposals has focused on structures: individual support plans (ISPs), education, health and care plan (EHCP) thresholds and accountability measures.

But for the reforms to be successful, they must go beyond simply redesigning systems for identifying need, and focus instead on raising the quality of inclusive practice for all children.

Early years educators now have an opportunity not just to respond to reform but to reshape how inclusion is understood in practice.

So, if EYFS provision is to become genuinely more inclusive, what might that look like?

Here are three points to consider:

1. Focus on universal rather than targeted interventions

As I argued in a previous feature for Tes, every new early years cohort includes children who experience various combinations of difficulties. Some of their needs will be medium- or long-term (relating to autism, for example), while others will be temporary, including fluctuating difficulties (for example, a child with glue ear may struggle to communicate).

But all children, whatever their needs, will benefit from early years provision with a focus on consistent routines, clear rules, warm interactions, reduced visual distraction and noise, and support for early communication.

In other words, a more inclusive approach to care and teaching can be more powerful, overall, than several targeted interventions designed to meet specific needs.

For example, universal approaches that support children’s communication are positive for every child, and disproportionately positive for children with delays in their development.

Importantly, while there is good research evidence to support the use of universal approaches, there is little evidence to support many targeted interventions in the early years.

For instance, the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) points out that “the existing evidence suggests that universal [personal, social and emotional development] approaches (ie, delivered to all children in a setting) are effective, while the evidence on targeted approaches (ie, delivered only to children experiencing social, emotional or behavioural challenges) is inconclusive”.

Similarly, universal approaches to promote language and communication are well supported. And while there is also good evidence to support some targeted interventions, like Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) in the Reception year, there are many other interventions that are often recommended for use in the early years that are less well-evidenced or where the staff delivering that intervention might need more training and ongoing support than is readily available.

Targeted help remains essential for some children; there will always be a small number presenting with more complex needs, who require carefully tailored support. There is some good, emerging evidence, for example, about the impact of interventions designed to help young children with SEND who experience difficulties in maths.

In general, though, we should be cautious, monitor the outcomes of interventions carefully and remember that, as far as the evidence is concerned, the best way to promote the needs of a wide range of children is through high-quality universal practice that is inclusive by design.

One way of thinking about this is to imagine inclusive practice as a rising tide - we want the level of support to be high enough that it reaches all children.

Universal approaches have broad, positive effects. They are our best chance of getting it right for children first time.

2. Rapid support beats waiting for diagnosis

A greater focus on inclusive mainstream practice not only means we don’t have to rely on waiting for a diagnosis, but it could also lead to a reduction in the overall number of children we describe as having a special need.

For example, if we already have the provision in place to support children with a delay in their language and communication, we may not need to single them out for further help.

Programmes such as Early Talk for York have demonstrated how improving the quality of inclusive practice is associated with reductions in referrals to speech and language therapy services.

By reducing referrals and cutting waiting lists nationally, we could direct more specialist support resources to the children who need them most, placing greater focus on those with longer-term needs, such as developmental language delay.

Noticing and taking rapid action when children struggle with their learning should therefore be prioritised over detailed diagnostic assessment, which can create delays and result in children being left without the help they need.

Similarly, extra support for a child should not be conditional on diagnostic assessment.

We must ensure that the reforms do not create rigid protocols, such as children needing to wait for a certain amount of time before they can have an ISP, or needing to stay at the ISP level for a year before being considered for an EHCP. These types of protocols lead to children having to “fail at each level” before getting closer to the support they need.

The focus should be on building the professional expertise, confidence and cross-sector collaboration to fast-track children when appropriate. We need systems that can provide the right support at the right time: neither rushing to intensive intervention, nor delaying help until difficulties become entrenched.

Finally, we must remember that it is very difficult to make an accurate “diagnosis” of a child’s needs when they are in the early years.

Children’s strengths and needs fluctuate. It isn’t helpful if a label gets “stuck” to a child who might, with appropriate support, no longer struggle with their learning in that area.

Assessment of learning needs should be ongoing and draw on multiple sources of information. But we should be very cautious about relying on screening tools, as many are expensive and have limited accuracy when used with young children.

3. Prioritise the right professional development

Achieving this kind of responsive, inclusive practice depends on delivering the right professional development to the early years workforce.

For example, there is a widely acknowledged need to improve understanding of child development. The over-identification of SEND in summer-born children highlights why this matters. Too often, age-related developmental differences are interpreted as indicators of special educational needs.

In a positive move, the Department for Education has made available free online CPD with a focus on child development.

However, as the EEF’s guidance on effective professional development explains, training modules alone will only take us so far.

As early years educators, we need to know about child development, but also what to do with that knowledge. This requires sustained CPD combined with opportunities to practise and receive regular, supportive feedback.

Staff teams need time to reflect on what they are learning and how they are putting that into practice. They also need mentoring or other forms of sustained social support to embed changes.

To make this a reality, schools and settings will need to keep improving their CPD offering, and will need support from the DfE to do this. That support could come from the Early Years Stronger Practice Hubs and local authorities, building communities of practice to develop the quality and impact of inclusive early years teaching.

The opportunity to create a truly inclusive system

The SEND reforms give us the opportunity to create an early years system that can welcome a wide range of children and promote their happy and successful development, from their first day in the EYFS.

We cannot achieve that by redesigning paperwork or creating new thresholds. The reforms will only succeed if they help early years settings to become more inclusive from the outset.

That means stronger professional development, evidence-informed practice and faster support when children begin to struggle.

Most importantly, it means building an early years system that responds to children’s needs before difficulties become entrenched - not after children have already experienced failure.

Dr Julian Grenier CBE is the co-editor of Putting the EYFS Curriculum into Practice (2nd Edition)