We're helping you answer the consultation questions for the SEND Review Green paper.
Our single answer question forms have now closed
Answering the questions in the SEND Review is not straightforward. There are complicated issues to consider if you want to do it properly. Below we have ponder points that you can use to help you answer the consultation
Even though our single answer forms have closed, you can still answer the consultation on the main Department for Education website or email your responses to: SENDReview.CONSULTATION@EDUCATION.GOV.UK
You can use these prompts to answer them on the Government website. Numbers 9 & 10 are below, the rest are accessed from here.
The form below comes to us to be stored securely. We will collate everything we get and submit them all to the SEND Consultation team. Below are ponder points to help you consider your answer. Include your name if you want, but we need your email to match your answers to other questions if you answer more than one. It won't be used for anything else other than this consultation. It won't be passed to the DfE.
A good idea is to:
- copy and paste the following prompts into the form below and add your answers under each one,
- copy and paste them into a notes app or word doc to answer, then paste the whole lot into the form below
Questions 9 & 10, as stated on the Government website:
To help you answer these two questions, you can read this part of Tania's post here. However, we have also included tips from her post below. Much of this section discusses teacher training, but there is no specific question about that, just about the SENCO role. So when you answer, you can just add those thoughts in one of these sections, or in the catch-all Question 22.
Consultation Question 9:
9: To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should introduce a new mandatory SENCo NPQ to replace the NASENCo?
What should you consider?
- Why is the level of confidence among teachers in supporting children with SEND low?
- What should be changed about the Initial Teacher Training Core Framework to improve SEND teaching?
- What should be changed about the SEND Code of Practice for SEND Teacher Training?
- Should the NASENCO award be scrapped for a new professional qualification? Is scrapping something better than just adjusting what's already there?
- Is an NPQ rigorous enough? If not, why not?
Consultation Question 10:
10: To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should strengthen the mandatory SENCo training requirement by requiring that headteachers must be satisfied that the SENCo is in the process of obtaining the relevant qualification when taking on the role?
- Is a head "being satisfied" that training to be a SENCO is happening enough for someone to be appointed to the role? Should they be at least halfway through-- eg, with a certificate on the way to a diploma? Should they be fully qualified first? What are your thoughts?
- If initial teacher training has a better SEND element, how would a part-qualified SENCO be better prepared?
- Do you think that SENCOs being part of the school senior leadership team should be mandatory to ensure SEND is always considered strategically? Why?
- Is giving SENCOs “sufficient protected time to carry out their role” a good idea? How would this be funded/back-filled? How do you decide how much time is sufficient?
- Is creating dedicated admin for the SENCO a good idea? Who should fund this? What would they do?
- Should SENCOs have other roles such as class teacher or year head? Why?
Go back to the main SEND Review Resources page to see all the questions
