It’s a bit of a misconception that when supporting learners with special educational needs, we need to dumb down the content. I do believe that the tide is turning on this; There are increasingly ambitious targets on schools to improve inclusion and equity in special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision, with government policy aiming to strengthen inclusive mainstream education and raise expectations for all pupils, including those with SEND (Department for Education, 2024). As we know, targets without the right infrastructure and investment can seem like empty gestures, which is what is leading many parents to seek additional support outside of school. 

I currently work with a range of students that, in many contexts, would be seen as ‘higher ability’, when given the right environment, but in school are stuck in ‘bottom sets’ (don’t even get me started on labelling theory- see Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968) and Becker, H. S. (1963)). I do really struggle with this term ‘higher ability’ because it implies intrinsic ability, but it is a common term used in education. For the sake of my work and this blog, I prefer to use the term aspirational, and I determine my own work with young people to be unapologetically ambitious for all learners, but with an inclusive lens. Yes, in some instances we need to adjust what the outcomes look like, or the journey to getting there, but that doesn’t mean watering down the thinking skills. It may just mean that instead of essay writing, for a 12 year old student with Pathalogical Demand Avoidance, we have investigative discussions about political boundaries when looking at a big map on the floor. The literacy is built through speaking first, and gentle invitations to writing later. 

Across the curriculum, challenge can look like many things- but within English, vocabulary, for me, is pivotal- as a threshold access point to everything else. Alex Quigley, in his book Closing the Vocabulary Gap argues that we need to teach word consciousness- a deep, active understanding of language that goes beyond surface meaning (Quigley, 2020); It’s about actively engaging in linguistics. This has been a huge passion since university, where studying sociolinguistics and completing my English Language degree really set the stage for not only having a love of language and an intrigue about words, but also for providing frameworks through which we can delve into, and critically evaluate, language. This includes looking at etymology, word origins, and attempts to break words down into prefixes and components- as much as considering the political and cultural impact of using some language forms over others.

So perhaps, in my work, rather than just being unapologetically ambitious, there is also a sense of being unapologetically geeky about the subject. I find that the more I work in a one-to-one context, the more I notice that there are many kids who are incredibly ‘geeky’- and I mean this in the most positive sense of the word. One parent said to me on an introductory call ‘they are more sensitive and thoughtful than their friends would realise’- in sessions with this student, they have shared ideas about global politics, classical music and jazz, travel, social media and history. When looking at photography as a stimulus, they have shared which ones they liked and thought about they story behind it. I feel really proud in these moments that I am able to create a space where reflection and curiosity is encouraged, tapping into their natural interests. 

When I was teaching in schools, it seemed like a social taboo to be seen enjoying a subject, unless you were in one of those top set classes where there is a culture of competition. Broadly speaking, when I was working with classes where there were perhaps higher levels of educational need profiles. These ‘lower sets’ would include really capable students, but because of specific socio-emotional demands, or difficulties with cognitive processing, they might need more time and space in the curriculum. The slower pace of a lower set group was deemed more suitable, but this doesn’t necessarily reflect their level of ability.

Sadly, those groups are sometimes characterised by social pressure around what it means to be smart, and the labelling that comes with that. I imagine this stems from the fact that many students in those classes systematically feel that they are not smart- so I like to find ways to help them renegotiate that internal narrative. 

Mary Myatt often speaks about high challenge, low threat- a phrase that resonates strongly with my teaching philosophy. Her emphasis on creating safe relationships and environments where challenge is welcomed rather than feared mirrors the conditions I work to cultivate (Myatt, 2018).

In a one-to-one context, I can fine-tune the level of challenge to hit the sweet spot, or zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)- the point where learning is most likely to occur because the challenge is appropriate but not overwhelming. This window of tolerance differs from student to student, and in classroom settings, teachers are constantly making strategic decisions to meet diverse needs.

[In Part 2, I’ll show how these principles translate into practice with curriculum design.]

References:

Angelou, M. (1978). And Still I Rise. Random House.

Department for Education. (2024). SEND and Inclusion in Education Expert Group: government policy and consultation. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/send-inclusion-in-education-expert-group

Frost, R. (1916). Mountain Interval. Henry Holt and Company.

Myatt, M. (2018). High challenge, low threat: Leading for challenge and support in schools. Bloomsbury Education.

Orwell, G. (1949/2021). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Penguin Classics.

Quigley, A. (2020). Closing the Vocabulary Gap. Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.