Repost: What approaches work best with children with special educational needs?
Why what works best for the most vulnerable benefits all children
Another post first published in March. As the vast majority of you subscribed subsequently, you might enjoy this whilst I’m away on my hols.
Also, if you like me reposting some of my older stuff, do please let me know.
You sometimes hear that children with special educational needs don’t need different provision, they just need god teaching. I think there’s some truth to this.
Of course, what works best for children with special needs depends upon the precise nature of an individual’s particular needs. That said, we can draw some generalisable conclusions by thinking about some of the more common areas of need schools have to contend with.
For instance, a child with a working memory deficit is likely to benefit from having information carefully sequenced and instruction broken into manageable chunks. But all children have limited working memory capacity and so all children will benefit from having instruction chunked. and sequenced.
Dyslexic children have the best possible chance of learning to read fluently if they are taught using a systematic synthetic phonics programme. This is equally true of children who are not dyslexic.
Students with an attachment disorder are likely to benefit from a structured environment, consistent rules, professional distance and focusing feedback on behaviour not the child. A child with an autistic spectrum disorder is likely to benefit from orderly routines and a calm environment. And a child who has ADHD is likely to benefit from clear boundaries and consistent, proportional consequences, but so is every other child.
While there will always be exceptions, by and large, the types of pastoral support and instructional practice that work best with children with SEND1 will be likely to get the best results with all children. If you want to know what good practice looks like then a good first step is to speak the the SEND Co-ordinator at your school; very likely they will have some wise and useful insights that will help teachers teach all their students more effectively.
While not all children are equally able, all children are more likely to achieve well if their teachers have high expectation of what they are capable. Those with educational disadvantages need explicit instruction, clear modelling, well-designed scaffolding which is removed as rapidly as is possible and lots of guided practice. But this is what is most likely to benefit all children.
The children who are most disadvantaged, most at risk of failing, will be those that most need their teachers to be aware of effective practice. Advantaged children are more likely to thrive regardless of what their teachers do but they too will still benefit from the kinds of practice children with SEND need.
In England, SEND stands for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.
Wow. Thank you so much for publishing this.
Your explanation that the nature of the developmental issue informs the intervention hit home.
I teach college and my school enrolls many special needs students in our classes - some are high school age. They don't even inform us how many special needs students we have; the sure don't tell us who they are and what their special needs are. The college provides zero classroom support and put faculty in no-win situations. College professors who are experts in our specialized fields, tend not to have any training in special needs education. The results are often as ugly as you might imagine.
Faculty have complained that some special needs students - with unknown needs - can be disruptive in class (I had one melt down during an exam and start screaming - the rest of the class reached out to me asking for alternative testing options.). To be fair, the students cannot be faulted if they are thrown into a college classroom without any support or even a 'heads up' to the faculty.
The faculty approached the administration asking for help so the rest of the class is not adversely affected by special needs students enrolled in a class taught by someone with no training in special needs education. The admin's solution was to offer a few online workshops. (A counselor with some training in special needs quietly advised us not to take the workshops - they are inadequate to give us needed training but they allow the College to blame faculty if something goes horribly wrong).
The most outrageous aspect is using special needs students as pawns in a game being played by the administration. (Many faculty resort to increased apathy for teaching duties - we put our energy where it can be productive. No point wasting effort on no-win situations)
This is a thoughtful and important reflection that resonates deeply with what we know about instructional systems change and the universality of effective teaching practices. The examples you share—carefully chunked instruction, structured environments, consistent feedback—highlight the power of applying what works for students with SEND to benefit all learners. At Instructional Empowerment, our research on Early Adopters and implementation of the Model of Instruction for Deeper Learning affirms this idea: strategies that support students with the most significant needs often elevate outcomes for everyone. When we center our instructional design on clarity, structure, and student agency, we build classrooms that are more inclusive, equitable, and effective. As leaders, we must continue to advocate for high expectations and scaffolded support—not just for some students, but for every student. Thank you for resurfacing this post; it’s a timely reminder that “good teaching” is, in fact, deeply responsive teaching.