My approach to my special education students is to start with the idea that they "can". I begin with a belief in their competence. I set them up to succeed and give them the opportunity to prove they can. If it's needed, I step back one step at a time to meet them where they're at and build from there. I see too many, well meaning staff in disability circles starting from they "can't". Of course they can't if we never give them a chance to show they can. Strong routines are essential to take a huge amount of unnecessary thinking stress and chaos out of each day. Explicit instruction is the tool that sets them up to learn effectively and efficiently and yes its great for all students but so necessary for students where working memory is already at max capacity, where different executive functioning skills may be tested. We've got to stop doing things without thinking of the future impacts and consequences for our most vulnerable students. Every intervention needs to pass through the future filter for the impact it may have on this students ability to be their best, most independent self.
David, as a SENCo, I agree. The most influential work a SENCo can do is not paper-based referrals or annual reviews. It is instructional leadership. When SENCos work alongside colleagues, refine universal provision, and strengthen classroom practice, the impact extends far beyond individual plans or reviews. It is regrettable that in many schools the demands of paperwork, time, funding and compliance leave too little time for this deeper, more strategic contribution.
"What never helps is confusing compensation with cure." Love this! Mark Seidenberg's continued concerns about overteaching phonics is a hot topic over here ever since he posted a few weeks ago about teaching all students as if they are dyslexic. I write about it In That Mark Seidenberg Blog: Determining Dosage and Delivery for Reading Instruction (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/that-mark-seidenberg-blog-determining?r=5spuf).
The implication of this work is profound. (This stack follows a previous post "What works for SEND students, works for all" I may have that not the title fully correct).
Your original post set me on a journey ago few years.
I work in a university in NZ
Typically, we have 1-3 hour lectures. With working memory and attention deficits for neurotypical and neurodiverse students, the retention of information is difficult and do not get me started on unfettered access to devices in lecture halls. It is as if tertiary has not heard of Cognitive load Theory or fully absorbed the Science of Learning.
Yet despite limitations of working memory tertiary education persists with this model. In workshops where class size is typcially 30 students I have used mini white boards to check for understanding and scaffolded notes and sequencing but I think there is more for me to learn
Hi Lloyd. If I was forced to teach three hour lectures I would chunk them into more manageable sub-lessons, each containing a range of different activities. But that sounds really tough.
Great article, David. A few thoughts: - Long, long time believer that quality teaching benefits everyone, and students with special needs more than most. That is the core of the Tier 1 foundation.
- Explicit teaching and the targeted teaching of phonics etc for struggling readers beyond early years is essential at Tier 2. Early intervention IS the best intervention. But once students hit that difficult adolescent age where peer pressure matters more than learning, it’s very difficult to continue with the 1:1 or small group targeted intervention required to see progress towards independence. By that age, students have either become so despondent over their lack of skills in comparison to peers, or they’ve worked the game that leaving class for support means they can avoid the classwork they find difficult. At that age, other accommodations need to be in place- with expectations that they use said accommodations to learn- not as an excuse to avoid work. We also have to help them at an emotional level to look for other areas of life where their skills can be recognised. 100 years ago, students who struggled to read/learn left school and worked on the family farm or got a trade. Now we insist they stay at school- which can often compound feelings of failure if the right pathways are not available. Tricky to navigate the struggling reader space in the teen years with a phonics based program (perhaps I misread that bit of your article).
- We work with our LSOs(aides) so that they too support students toward independence, not learned helplessness.
Love your work and will share this article with colleagues. Thank you!
In my experience, the most effective SEND provision doesn’t start with something radically different — it starts with doing the fundamentals exceptionally well. Clear explanations. Careful sequencing. Explicit modelling. Relentless checking for understanding. Predictable routines. These aren’t “SEND strategies.” They’re good teaching. And when they’re weak, it’s the most vulnerable pupils who feel it first.
Where I think this piece is especially strong is in the warning about substitution. It’s easy to mistake task completion for learning. A laptop, a reader, a teaching assistant beside a child — all can be necessary. But if they bypass the very thing the child needs to build, we’ve reduced friction without increasing independence. Support should create lift, not long-term dependence.
At the same time, the distinction between universal and targeted provision matters. The base layer must be strong — but some pupils genuinely need specialist intervention layered on top. The key question isn’t “Is this different?” but “Is this building capacity?”
For me, this links directly to equity. Advantaged pupils can sometimes succeed despite weak instruction. Pupils with SEND often can’t. That makes disciplined, explicit, responsive teaching not just a pedagogical choice, but a moral one.
The fundamentals haven’t disappeared — but where they have weakened, it’s our most vulnerable children who pay the price first.
"Advantaged children may cope despite mediocre teaching." Yes, they may. But is it any fairer in any true educational sense for them to be held back too? This is too often ignored.
What supports the most disadvantaged (clarity, structure, modelling, practice) of course tends to raise the floor for everyone. It's a leap to assume that it also raises the ceiling enough for the highest attainers.
I think you're conflating high attainers with advantage. There's probably a lot of crossover but I'm honestly not much interested in the most advantaged who are also high prior attainers. Those guys will be fine whatever happens in school. My position is that teaching in the way the post recommends is best for all but necessary for some.
This made me pause - and reflect - thank you. It raises important questions about how intentionally we design learning: what children are being asked to hold in mind, how ideas are sequenced, and how we might reduce unnecessary cognitive noise.
Knowing the child in front of us feels more important than ever
My approach to my special education students is to start with the idea that they "can". I begin with a belief in their competence. I set them up to succeed and give them the opportunity to prove they can. If it's needed, I step back one step at a time to meet them where they're at and build from there. I see too many, well meaning staff in disability circles starting from they "can't". Of course they can't if we never give them a chance to show they can. Strong routines are essential to take a huge amount of unnecessary thinking stress and chaos out of each day. Explicit instruction is the tool that sets them up to learn effectively and efficiently and yes its great for all students but so necessary for students where working memory is already at max capacity, where different executive functioning skills may be tested. We've got to stop doing things without thinking of the future impacts and consequences for our most vulnerable students. Every intervention needs to pass through the future filter for the impact it may have on this students ability to be their best, most independent self.
David, as a SENCo, I agree. The most influential work a SENCo can do is not paper-based referrals or annual reviews. It is instructional leadership. When SENCos work alongside colleagues, refine universal provision, and strengthen classroom practice, the impact extends far beyond individual plans or reviews. It is regrettable that in many schools the demands of paperwork, time, funding and compliance leave too little time for this deeper, more strategic contribution.
Excellent post, David. You’ve articulated the principles and exemplified them in a way that will be immediately useful to teachers.
"What never helps is confusing compensation with cure." Love this! Mark Seidenberg's continued concerns about overteaching phonics is a hot topic over here ever since he posted a few weeks ago about teaching all students as if they are dyslexic. I write about it In That Mark Seidenberg Blog: Determining Dosage and Delivery for Reading Instruction (https://harriettjanetos.substack.com/p/that-mark-seidenberg-blog-determining?r=5spuf).
Thankyou for this David.
The implication of this work is profound. (This stack follows a previous post "What works for SEND students, works for all" I may have that not the title fully correct).
Your original post set me on a journey ago few years.
I work in a university in NZ
Typically, we have 1-3 hour lectures. With working memory and attention deficits for neurotypical and neurodiverse students, the retention of information is difficult and do not get me started on unfettered access to devices in lecture halls. It is as if tertiary has not heard of Cognitive load Theory or fully absorbed the Science of Learning.
Yet despite limitations of working memory tertiary education persists with this model. In workshops where class size is typcially 30 students I have used mini white boards to check for understanding and scaffolded notes and sequencing but I think there is more for me to learn
Thankyou in anticipation for any guidance
Hi Lloyd. If I was forced to teach three hour lectures I would chunk them into more manageable sub-lessons, each containing a range of different activities. But that sounds really tough.
Great article, David. A few thoughts: - Long, long time believer that quality teaching benefits everyone, and students with special needs more than most. That is the core of the Tier 1 foundation.
- Explicit teaching and the targeted teaching of phonics etc for struggling readers beyond early years is essential at Tier 2. Early intervention IS the best intervention. But once students hit that difficult adolescent age where peer pressure matters more than learning, it’s very difficult to continue with the 1:1 or small group targeted intervention required to see progress towards independence. By that age, students have either become so despondent over their lack of skills in comparison to peers, or they’ve worked the game that leaving class for support means they can avoid the classwork they find difficult. At that age, other accommodations need to be in place- with expectations that they use said accommodations to learn- not as an excuse to avoid work. We also have to help them at an emotional level to look for other areas of life where their skills can be recognised. 100 years ago, students who struggled to read/learn left school and worked on the family farm or got a trade. Now we insist they stay at school- which can often compound feelings of failure if the right pathways are not available. Tricky to navigate the struggling reader space in the teen years with a phonics based program (perhaps I misread that bit of your article).
- We work with our LSOs(aides) so that they too support students toward independence, not learned helplessness.
Love your work and will share this article with colleagues. Thank you!
In my experience, the most effective SEND provision doesn’t start with something radically different — it starts with doing the fundamentals exceptionally well. Clear explanations. Careful sequencing. Explicit modelling. Relentless checking for understanding. Predictable routines. These aren’t “SEND strategies.” They’re good teaching. And when they’re weak, it’s the most vulnerable pupils who feel it first.
Where I think this piece is especially strong is in the warning about substitution. It’s easy to mistake task completion for learning. A laptop, a reader, a teaching assistant beside a child — all can be necessary. But if they bypass the very thing the child needs to build, we’ve reduced friction without increasing independence. Support should create lift, not long-term dependence.
At the same time, the distinction between universal and targeted provision matters. The base layer must be strong — but some pupils genuinely need specialist intervention layered on top. The key question isn’t “Is this different?” but “Is this building capacity?”
For me, this links directly to equity. Advantaged pupils can sometimes succeed despite weak instruction. Pupils with SEND often can’t. That makes disciplined, explicit, responsive teaching not just a pedagogical choice, but a moral one.
The fundamentals haven’t disappeared — but where they have weakened, it’s our most vulnerable children who pay the price first.
"Advantaged children may cope despite mediocre teaching." Yes, they may. But is it any fairer in any true educational sense for them to be held back too? This is too often ignored.
The point of the article is that if we do what’s best for the most disadvantaged *everyone* benefits.
That does not necessarily follow.
Yes. It does. It necessarily follows.
What supports the most disadvantaged (clarity, structure, modelling, practice) of course tends to raise the floor for everyone. It's a leap to assume that it also raises the ceiling enough for the highest attainers.
I think you're conflating high attainers with advantage. There's probably a lot of crossover but I'm honestly not much interested in the most advantaged who are also high prior attainers. Those guys will be fine whatever happens in school. My position is that teaching in the way the post recommends is best for all but necessary for some.
It was a poor choice of words. I should have said high-potential learners, who even with solid classroom teaching are often not stretched enough.
Though, of course, we should be doing our very best for children who are behind in learning. As for all children.
This made me pause - and reflect - thank you. It raises important questions about how intentionally we design learning: what children are being asked to hold in mind, how ideas are sequenced, and how we might reduce unnecessary cognitive noise.
Knowing the child in front of us feels more important than ever