Deafened by silence or by the sound of footsteps? An investigation of the recruitment, induction and retention of special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) in England

© 2008 The Author

96

Journal compilation © 2008 nasen

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs

•

Volume 8

•

Number 2

•

2008 96–110doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2008.00107.x

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

XX

Deafened by silence or by the sound of footsteps? An investigation of the recruitment, induction and retention of special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) in England

Sue Pearson

University of Leeds

Key words

: SENCO, career routes, recruitment, retention, teacher development

The requirement for schools to appoint a specialeducational needs coordinator (SENCO) to coordinateprovision for pupils with special educational needs(SEN) has existed since 1994. Since that time, therole has been subject to considerable research,debate and guidance. However, how the duty is beingfulfilled in terms of the career pathways of theSENCOs is an under-researched area.

NASEN commissioned a postal questionnaire surveywith a sample of 500 English SENCOs. Although the

reliance on untriangulated data is a limitation,the study did highlight some of the issues from theperspectives of the post holders. There is evidenceof a high turnover amongst SENCOs for a variety ofreasons only partly explained by the demographics.This situation gives rise to particular concerns aboutthe recruitment of SENCOs, and the extent, natureand value of the initial support offered to them. Therole of the SENCO needs to be seen as attractiveenough to ensure recruitment and an appropriatelevel of retention. It needs to be regarded asimportant enough to merit adequate, supportiveinduction. At present, in England, the situation ispatchy with the respondents describing very differentsystems and sets of experiences. If all schools areto move beyond simply complying with the duty toensuring the engagement of individuals willing orprepared to develop the necessary skills, then theviews of current SENCOs should be taken into account.

Special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) arecentral to the provision, procedures and practices related tospecial educational needs (SEN) (Department of Educationand Skills (DfES), 2001; NASEN, 2001). A limited numberof surveys have been undertaken to explore these aspects ofthe role (Cole, 2005; Evans, Docking & Evans, 1996;Lewis, Neill & Campbell, 1997; Male, 1996; NationalUnion of Teachers, NUT, 2004). Subsequent to these, therehave been contextual changes (e.g., Work Force Reform

1

),

and within existing surveys, certain aspects of theSENCOs’ role have received scant attention. This paperreports the findings from a NASEN-funded survey of 500SENCOs employed in England in 2007. NASEN’spurposes were to inform the activities of the organisationand to contribute to the national debate about professionalroles. The foci of the research were the SENCOs’perspectives on the inter-linked themes of recruitment,induction and retention.

Background

Attrition from the teaching profession is a global concernand particularly in relation to headships and seniormanagement posts (Gent, MacBeath, Hobby, Liss, Benson,Smith, and Jacka 2006). The situation is so serious thatsome commentators have adopted the term ‘

recruitmentcrisis

’, although these particular authors preferred the morepositive term, ‘

recruitment challenge

’ (p. 5). They arguethat this plays out in different ways that may be associatedwith the geographical area or characteristics of the school.Other underlying factors suggested by Gent et al. (2006)include the ‘greying’ of the profession and the rolesbecoming or being perceived as ‘less attractive’.

Both of these latter factors may apply to SENCOs, as theyare experienced teachers who are, therefore, nearer to theend of their careers. In terms of the attractiveness of thepost, Male (1996, p. 88), reviewing the factors thatinfluence teachers’ career intentions, argued that ‘

SENCosare viewed as being especially vulnerable to some of thosefactors found to be associated with teacher attrition

.’ In thelast 10 years since these comments, both the context andthe expectations on SENCOs have changed. Therefore, thissurvey was undertaken to provide up-to-date informationabout the career paths of existing SENCOs and the factorsinfluencing them.

The converse to attrition is attracting in new personnel.Gent et al. (2006, p. 10) argued the need to distinguishbetween recruitment and selection with the former referringto a process of ensuring a large applicant pool and the latterto the process of reducing this to a reasonable number.

1

This initiative which was phased in from September 2003 and is designed to tackle

workloads and address teacher recruitment and retention.

© 2008 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2008 nasen

97

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,

8

96–110

Gathering data of this type would have involved seeking theviews of those charged with appointing SENCOs, whichwas beyond the scope of this study. Rather, recruitment wasseen from the appointee’s perspective and their perceptionsof the process(es) that led to their appointment.

Emphasis is consistently given to the need for inductionof staff to new posts, whatever their level of experience(Castagnoli & Cook, 2004; Gent et al., 2006). This surveytherefore also asked about the respondents’ relevantqualifications at the time of appointment and theirperceptions of the induction within their first year in post.

Gent et al. (2006) noted that whilst the National Standardsfor Headteachers (Teacher Training Agency, TTA, 1998a)are a ‘

manifestation of the commonality of the role

’ (p. 19),the uniqueness of each headship also needs to be recognised.They also questioned how ‘future proof’ (p. 42) the standardsare, illustrating this by reference to the Every Child Mattersagenda (Department for Education and Skills, DfES, 2003).It seems plausible that the same argument can be madeabout the National Standards for Special Needs Co-ordinators(Teacher Training Agency, 1998b) or the expectations setout in the Code of Practice (Department of Education andSkills, DfES, 2001). There is a need to contextualise thesedevelopments within the educational setting and considerthe interaction between SEN and other educationalinnovations. The survey, therefore, collected data about theschool and other aspects of the respondents’ roles.

Twelve years ago, Male (1996, p. 92) in reflecting on herfindings about the career continuation plan of SENCOs,commented:

‘

If SENCO attrition is not to become an issue then these early warning signals need to be addressed, particularly in relation to the administrative burden placed upon them. In addition, we need to ask how we can strengthen – and formalise – those factors which seem to be the most promising in terms of promoting a SENCO’s intention to remain within the special education field. Perhaps then, when we ask “Who would want to undertake this role?”, we will not be deafened by the silence

.’

The demographics are impacting on the whole teachingprofession and the evolution of the role has continuedunabated. The intention of this study is, by building on theexisting research, to investigate the current situation fromthe perspective of the existing SENCOs.

Salient evidence from earlier surveys

Two surveys related to the role of SENCOs wereundertaken in the late 1990s (Evans, Docking & Evans,1996; Lewis, Neill & Campbell, 1996). The first of theseinvolved all the SENCOs in five local education authorities(LEAs) (i.e., four London boroughs and an adjacentcounty) and achieved a return rate for a postal questionnaireof 70%. It also involved some interviews with heads,SENCOs, teachers and governors in a small sample of

schools. The second survey, which was distributed by theNUT to all schools, obtained responses from almost 2200schools, a return rate of almost 10%.

Relevant findings from the first survey include:

• Secondary SENCOs were more likely to have qualifications in SEN (65%, 30%). (Evans et al., 1996, p. 100)

• Primary SENCOs were more likely to be members of the senior management team (55%, 22%) although they were also more likely to have other coordinating responsibilities. (Evans et al., 1996, p. 100)

A commentary on their survey (Lewis, Neill & Campbell,1997), focussing on data about mainstream schools,noted ‘

striking similarities

’ (p. 3) between the two sets offindings. Those relevant to this survey include:

• Overall, SENCOs in primary schools were less likely than their counterparts in secondary schools to have SEN responsibilities recognised in the salaries policy. (p. 4)

• Overall, one in five schools planned to employ additional non-teaching staff for pupils with SEN. A slightly smaller proportion of schools planned to take on additional teaching staff.

• A common feature among primary- and secondary-based SENCOs was the very high level of dissatisfaction (evident in both quantitative and qualitative evidence) concerning the perceived inadequacy of non-contact time available for carrying out special needs duties.

In their view:

‘

The gulf between perceived expectations of the SENCO role in the light of the Code and the resources available to fill those expectations is likely to lead to increasing dissatisfaction from teachers, education managers, parents and school governors

.’ (Lewis, Neill & Campbell, 1997, p. 6)

The situation they described could potentially impact onretention and evidence supporting that view had alreadybeen published (Male, 1996). She used a postal survey toelicit the views of SENCOs in 35 primary and 35 secondaryschools in southeast England. Again, there was a highresponse rate of 63%. Her data about career continuationplans appear in Table 1.

She noted that whilst the immediate plans of the SENCOswere to remain in the position or a similar position, the

Table 1: SENCOs career continuation plans (Male,1996)

1 year (%) 5 years (%)

Stay Go Unknown Stay Go Unknown

Primary 75 8.5 16.5 41.5 25.0 33.5

Secondary 85.0 5.0 10.0 45.0 45.0 10.0

© 2008 The Author

98



8

96–110

more distant plan of a high percentage indicated theintention to leave. This was more common amongstsecondary than primary colleagues. She grouped thereasons for leaving around job-related conditions, SENCOs’perceptions of their ability to cope, and retirement oralternative professions ‘

as a way out

’ (p. 90). She alsoidentified a minority who had positive reasons for leaving,including seeking promotion or a wish to broaden theirexperience.

A limitation of this study is the small sample size (70 werecontacted with 44 replies). All of the respondents are fromone geographical area, southeast England, yet it is probablethat circumstances for SENCOs across the country mayvary.

The revised Code of Practice (Department of Education andSkills, DfES, 2001) updated the parameters of the role.This, in part, was a response about and from SENpractitioners but also reflected the interdependency betweenforms of educational provision and professional practices(Tomlinson, 1982). The impact of the revised Code ofPractice (Department of Education and Skills, DfES, 2001)was the subject of a survey undertaken by the NUT in 2003(National Union of Teachers, 2004). A total of 141SENCOs responded to the survey although the numbercontacted is not given.

Relevant findings include:

• Although the largest group of SENCOs responding to the survey said that the revised Code of Practice itself was more manageable than the original Code of Practice (45%), over two-thirds of the SENCOs (74%) said that the revised Code had not led to a reduction in workload. The reason why workload had not been reduced was that a dramatic expansion in the role during recent years outstripped the amount of support and time available to SENCOs during school.

• Although 57% of SENCOs’ training needs had been met (p. 17), 19% answered that their specific training needs as a SENCO had not been addressed.

• Seventy-two per cent of the SENCOs reported that their school salary policy recognised their responsibilities as SENCOs. Among the 22% of respondents who replied that their school policy did not recognise their responsibilities as a SENCO, none of those schools intended to revise their salary policy to recognise the responsibilities associated with the role. Among the 72% of respondents who stated that their school policy does recognise their responsibilities as SENCOs, there is a wide variation in the degree to which these additional responsibilities are recognised and rewarded (p. 12).

• The responses highlighted the fact that often SENCOs have to learn as they go along and that the quality of in-house training from the LEA is often poor. Several of the SENCOs commented that they could do with more external in-service training (INSET) and access to ‘real experts’, but explained that the costs of INSET were often prohibitive and for some SENCOs all courses had

been cancelled because of budget crises. Several SENCOs raised concerns about the lack of time for following up course ideas and development.

The analysis of the data did not include an examination ofassociations with phases, LEAs or any teacher variablesincluding NUT membership. Little detail was availableabout the sample either in terms of the criteria or therepresentativeness of the returned questionnaires.

More recently, Cole (2005) undertook a survey of SENCOsin two unitary authorities in the north of England usingquestionnaires. There were 59 respondents (46 fromprimary, 12 from secondary and 1 provided no details).Relevant findings included information about the number ofyears in their present schools (0–5 years: 37%; 6–10 years:18%; 11–15 years: 14%; 16–20 years: 20%; 21–25 years:2%; and 25+ years: 8%). This would suggest that there is amixture of staff with substantial experience but also aconsiderable level of recent recruitment.

She found that 17% had no allowance associated with therole. Thirty-eight per cent had an allowance associated withthe role, 15% were heads of department/year and 15% weresenior managers.

However, this survey is somewhat limited both in terms ofthe number of respondents and restricted geographicalareas. It confirmed the need for a larger scale survey andthereby this influenced the current study.

Since the time of Cole’s (2005) survey, multiple educationalinnovations have impacted on schools including WorkForce Reform (Teacher Training Agency, TTA, 2003),Every Child Matters (Department for Education and Skills,DfES, 2003) and the SEN and Disability Act (Departmentfor Education and Employment, DfEE, 2001). The NUTsurvey was designed to investigate the impact of the revisedCode of Practice. The timing of this survey was intended toinvestigate the impact of multiple innovations from theperspective of existing SENCOs. It is concerned with boththe present situation and their future intentions.

Methodology

A postal questionnaire method of data collection wasadopted to ensure a large sample (n = 500) and coverage ofthe whole of England, thus avoiding some of the selectivityof earlier surveys. The elements were designed based onthe existing literature in the areas. Additionally, someearlier interviews influenced some of the options provided.The need to balance the desire for detailed information withproviding something manageable for busy SENCOs(Layton, 2005) resulted in the decision to avoid complexitybut to ask respondents whether they would be willing toengage in further research.

A combination of questions involved closed questions,Likert rating scales and open-ended questions. Thequestionnaire was piloted with three academic staff andthree teachers, with modifications made after the feedback.


99


8

96–110

The final version (see Appendix 1) was circulated to schoolsin March 2007. Respondents were provided with a SAE(stamped addressed envelope). Anonymity was guaranteedand respondents were made aware that the findings wouldbe used by NASEN and within published materials.

All data was analysed using the Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences (SPSS). Throughout the study,

P

= 5 orless.

Sample

The sample had two elements to it. All the SENCOs in alocal authority (LA) with 164 educational settings (nursery,primary, secondary and specialist) were included. A list ofmembers of NASEN who had indicated that they wereSENCOs was also used. Any members working in the LAwere excluded. From the remaining names, 336 respondentswere randomly selected. The dual approach was intended toensure that it was representative of England through theNASEN data, and comprehensive in terms of ensuring thatit covered all forms of educational provision through theLA sample. The use of the two samples also minimised thebias that might have arisen if only a single samplingapproach had been used.

Findings

Return rates

A total of 266 questionnaires were returned. Of these, onewas from an area SENCO who ‘

goes into private, voluntaryand independent nurseries

’. She did not complete thequestionnaire fully saying that it appeared to be aimed atschool-based SENCOs but she did provide contact details.The overall return rate (n = 266) was 53%, although thiswas achieved by allowing some flexibility with the closingdate. Any responses received by 20 May 2007 wereincluded.

The return rate for the LA-based sample was 36.5% and forthe NASEN-based sample 61.3%. These numbers need tobe treated with some caution. Some questionnaires werereturned in envelopes other than those provided whichmeant that by default they were classed as NASENrespondents. Therefore the recorded rate of return from theLA may be slightly lower than the actual rate and viceversa for NASEN respondents.

For most of the analysis, responses from both sources wereamalgamated. Where they are disaggregated to exploredifferences between the two groups, this is noted.

Approximately 58.2% (151) of the respondents providedcontact details and indicated a willingness to be involved infurther related research.

Context

The schools represented ranged in size from 12 pupils(an Early Years Assessment Centre) to 2200 pupils (twosecondary schools for 11–18-years-olds). Four respondentsdid not provide information about the size of the school(mean = 640, standard deviation = 507.5).

The types of school responding to the survey are set out inTable 2.

For purposes of analysis, these were grouped into primary(n = 136) and secondary (n = 110). Twenty schools did notfit into these categories but some specific, illustrativecomments were included.

Characteristics of respondents

The length of service of the respondents ranged from lessthan a year to 26 years, with the mean level of experienceof 7 years (standard deviation = 4.85). The respondentwith the longest service commented that he had ‘

movedfrom “remedial” to “SEN” via Warnock etc

’.

2

This type ofprogression was also described by a respondent with 22years of experience.

In response to the question ‘Are you a teacher in theschool?’, 94% responded positively. Of those respondingnegatively (n = 14), 10 were members of NASEN. However,respondents’ additional comments meant that this apparentresult is potentially misleading. Seven (n = 14) hadQualified Teacher Status (QTS) and one described her roleas ‘headteacher’ (in a primary school for 130 pupils).Others without QTS named qualifications that theyregarded as relevant, for example, BSc and Diploma, MA(Education), Advanced Certificate in Autism.

Allowances

Some respondents (25) did not provide any informationabout allowances. Approximately 17.8% of respondentswho did respond (n = 241) said there was no allowanceassociated with the role of SENCO. Of these, two work insecondary schools; one is a Higher Level TeachingAssistant (HLTA) in a secondary school of 420 pupils andthe other is an assistant head in a secondary school for 600pupils. The size of the primary schools in which theSENCOs have no allowance ranged from 46 to 450 pupils.The respondent in the largest of these primary schools had10 years of SENCO experience and did not anticipate anyimmediate change in her circumstances, saying ‘

Remainthe same unless new Head appointed

.’ This respondent didnot provide contact details.

2

Material in italics are direct quotations from the questionnaires.

Table 2: Types of school included in the sample

Frequency Per cent (%)

All ages 11 4.2

First school 2 0.8

Infant 17 6.4

Junior 21 7.9

Middle 8 3.0

Nursery 94 35.1

Secondary 110 41.5

Total 266 100.0

© 2008 The Author

100



8

96–110

Using only the data from primary or secondary schools,there are phase-related differences in the number ofSENCOs with allowances. The responses received are setout in Table 3.

In relation to ‘other’, the role of the SENCO as an elementof a wider management role was noted by somerespondents. For example, one noted, ‘

Now moved toLeadership Scale L7 as Acting Assistant Head

’, whilstanother said, ‘

Part of my role as Deputy Head

’.

Membership of senior management team (SMT)

An approximate 54.5% of respondents are not part of thesenior management team (SMT). Using

χ

2

-test, there arestatistically significant differences between primary andsecondary schools, with 68.4% of respondents working inprimary schools being part of the SMT whereas only 17.3%working in secondary schools were.

There is a strong positive association between membershipof SMT and the allowances associated with the role of SENCO.

Line management

A wide range of staff were named as the line manager ofthe SENCOs. These included headteacher (145), deputyhead (44) and assistant head (30).

Other responsibilities

A total of 32 respondents (n = 266) did not name any otherresponsibilities, although from the commentary providedby many of these, they do combine the role with other

activities. The range and extent of other responsibilitiesvaries enormously.

Retention

Respondents were asked about their medium-term plans(5–7 years) and this data in terms of positive responsesappears in Table 4. Individuals may be taking into accountmultiple factors and so some respondents ticked more thanone option.

Overall, more than half of the SENCOs (53.3%) do notwish to continue in their current role. Within the next 5to 7 years, around 40% of SENCOs plan to retire. Thereare examples of ‘positive’ reasons (Male, 1996) for notcontinuing in terms of seeking promotion or taking on amanagement position.

There are statistical differences between primary andsecondary schools (using

χ

2

-test). In line with Male’s(1996) earlier findings, more primary SENCOs wish tocontinue than do secondary ones. More secondary thanprimary SENCOs selected the option ‘Seeking promotionincluding remaining SENCO’. Other differences are notstatistically significant.

There are statistical differences associated with length ofservice. Those who have less experience are more likely torelinquish the role, to be a SENCO in another school or tomove to a specialist provision, to look for a managementrole in another school, or to join an advisory service. (Thedifferences for another school and the advisory service areborderline.)

Those who are considering moving away from being aSENCO were asked to identify and rank the factors thatwere influencing them. This data appears in Table 5.

Retirement was amongst the top reasons given forintending to move away from being a SENCO in themedium term. Male (1996) portrayed this as one ofthe possible ‘

ways out

’. Given the demographics of theprofession, it may now be that this is not so much a ‘wayout’ but rather individuals reaching the end of their career.

Table 3: Payment of allowances to SENCOs

Primary Secondary Total

TLR1 12.2% (15) 51.0% (51) 29.6% (66)

TLR2 26.8% (33) 34.0% (34) 30.0% (67)

Other 32.5% (40) 13.0% (13) 23.8% (53)

None 28.5% (35) 2.0% (2) 16.6% (37)

TLR = Teaching and Learning Responsibility.

Table 4: Medium-term plans of SENCOs


I would like to continue being SENCO at my present school. 52.9% (72) 39.1% (43) 46.7% (115)

I would like to stop being the SENCO. 6.6% (9) 11.8% (13) 8.9% (22)

I am hoping for promotion in my current school including remaining SENCO. 5.9% (8) 12.7% (14) 8.9% (22)

I am hoping for promotion in my current school but not remaining SENCO. 0.7% (1) 4.5% (5) 2.4% (6)

I am planning to retire. 37.5% (51) 43.8% (48) 40.2% (99)

I would like to be SENCO in another school. 5.9% (8) 10.0% (11) 7.7% (19)

I would like to move into a more specialist provision. 8.1% (11) 9.1% (10) 8.5% (21)

I would like to take on a management role in this school, e.g., headship, deputy head. 6.6% (9) 11.8% (13) 8.9% (22)

I would like to take on a management role in another school, e.g., headship, deputy head. 14.7% (20) 11.8% (13) 13.4% (33)

I would like to join an advisory service. 16.2% (22) 20.9% (23) 18.3% (45)

I would like to leave teaching. 5.1% (7) 10.9% (12) 7.7% (19)


101


8

96–110

Looking at the total picture, job-related factors (lack of jobsatisfaction, heavy workload) are influential. There aresignificant phase-related associations. Secondary staffmore frequently cited lack of job satisfaction, workload,professional challenge and others.

In terms of length of service, the only significant differencewas retirement and those with longer service were morelikely to select this.

The data about retention suggests that, in the medium term,many schools will be involved in recruiting new SENCOs.The next section provides data about the recruitmentprocesses based on the perspectives of the SENCOs.

Recruitment

Respondents were invited to tick as many boxes asappropriate. The results appear in Table 6.

Overall, the most frequent routes to becoming a SENCOare through external adverts and inheriting when acolleague left. However the total percentages maskstatistically significant differences between primary andsecondary schools. Using

χ

2

-test,

3

it is evident that:

• Secondary schools are more likely to use an external advert, much more likely to use an internal advert that

includes the role of SENCO and to recruit through Work Force Reform.

• Primary schools are likely to use an external advert that includes the role of SENCO, to recruit through re-organisation and to recruit through individuals volunteering.

• There are no differences in the likelihood of inheriting the role.

When the length of service was compared across recruitmentroutes (using

T

-test), there were some statistically significantdifferences. Those appointed through external adverts weremore likely to have been in the post longer whilst thoseappointed through either an external or internal advert thatincluded the role of SENCO were likely to have been in thepost for a shorter period.

Using

χ

2

-test, there are significant positive associationsbetween allowances and external adverts, internal advertsand volunteering. However, some caution is needed becausea number of SENCOs have allowances which they did notdirectly link with that role, such as deputy head.

Qualifications at time of appointment

Respondents were asked about their qualifications atthe time of appointment. The term, ‘qualifications’, wasused to refer to award-bearing courses, non-award-bearingcourses and experience in previous schools. The results areset out in Table 7.

3

Throughout the analysis,

P

= 5% or less.

Table 5: Factors influencing the desire to move away from the role of SENCO


Lack of job satisfaction 9.6% (13) 20.9% (23) 14.6% (36)

Heavy workload 33.1% (45) 46.4% (51) 39.0% (96)

Ready for new professional challenge 19.9% (27) 30.0% (33) 24.4% (60)

Alternative career opportunity within school(s) 3.7% (5) 2.7% (3) 3.3% (8)

School restructuring 6.6% (9) 8.2% (9) 7.3% (18)

Desire for increased salary 11.8% (16) 9.1% (10) 10.6% (26)

Personal/family factors 17.6% (24) 19.1% (21) 18.3% (45)

Retirement 36.8% (50) 42.7% (47) 39.4% (97)

Other 2.9% (4) 9.1% (10) 5.7% (14)

Table 6: Recruitment routes


External advert for the post of SENCO 13.2% (18) 43.6% (48) 26.8% (66)

External advert for a post including role of SENCO 13.2% (18) 5.5% (6) 9.8% (24)

Internal advert for post of SENCO 8.1% (11) 21.8% (24) 14.2% (35)

Internal advert for a post that included the responsibilities of SENCO 2.2% (3) 7.3% (8) 4.5% (11)

Part of a rotation in school 4.4% (6) 0.9% (1) 2.8% (7)

Part of a re-organisation within the school 18.4% (25) 3.6% (4) 11.8% (29)

Arose through Work Force Reform 0% (0) 3.6% (4) 1.6% (4)

Volunteered for the post when the opportunity arose 23.5% (32) 2.7% (3) 14.5% (35)

Inherited when a colleague left 28.9% (39) 27.3% (30) 28.2% (69)

© 2008 The Author

102



8

96–110

The most common ‘qualification’ was experience in aprevious school, although it would appear that around 50%of the SENCOs do not have this.

However, there are phase-related statistical differences.Using

χ

2

-test, these are:

• Secondary SENCOs are more likely to have Masters and Postgraduate Diplomas;

• Secondary SENCOs are more likely to have had experience in a previous school; and

• Primary school SENCOs are much more likely to say they have no qualifications.

Using

T

-tests, there were no significant differences betweenlength of service for those with and without the range ofqualifications listed in the questionnaire. This suggests arelatively stable pattern.

Induction

They were also asked about the induction available in theirfirst year and their rating of each available form (Scale 1–10, with 10 the highest). Table 8 indicates the availabilityof different forms of induction. Respondents could indicatemultiple opportunities.

Overall, the most available sources of support in the firstyear were the support services, NASEN journals and

Special!.

However, there are phase-related statisticaldifferences. In secondary schools, there was a statistically

higher availability of experience as a Deputy SENCO,access to NASEN journals and

Special!

, and courses bothfrom NASEN and other providers. In primary schools,there was a statistically higher availability of LEA/LA filesand LEA courses.

About 14% (37) of all respondents did not record havinghad access to any of the forms of induction listed on thequestionnaire. There was no significant phase-relatedassociation. Some of this group did write comments whichincluded reports of frustration, such as ‘

No support at all!Minimal involvement with other SENCOs in Family ofschools

.’ (SENCO in primary school); ‘

None, started fromscratch and brought my own teaching materials fromprivate teaching work

.’ (SENCO in secondary school);‘

No training or INSET

’ (Early Years SENCO). Twocommented that they became SENCOs before trainingreally became available.

In total, 87 responded to open-ended questions about otherforms of induction. Some of the responses appeared to beelaborations of information already provided, for instance,‘

University of Sussex dyslexia course

’.

Predominantly SENCOs talked about:

• Interaction with other SENCOs, for example, ‘

termly meetings, liaison with other schools’ SENCOs, joining other SENCOs in my area and sharing experiences and practices

’.

Table 7: Qualifications at time of appointment


Masters linked to SEN/inclusion 3.7% (5) 13.8% (15) 8.2% (20)

Postgraduate diploma linked to SEN/inclusion 12.5% (17) 30% (33) 20.3% (50)

Postgraduate certificate linked to SEN/inclusion 11.8% (16) 18.3% (20) 14.7% (36)

LEA-based qualification linked to SEN/inclusion 11.8% (16) 17.3% (19) 14.2% (35)

Experience in one or more previous schools 42.6% (58) 56.4% (62) 48.4% (120)

None 41.2% (56) 10% (11) 27.2% (67)

Table 8: Available forms of induction


Shadowing previous SENCO 26.5% (36) 18.2% (20) 22.8% (56)

Working as a ‘deputy SENCO’ 12.5% (17) 26.4% (29) 18.7% (46)

Contact with support services 66.9% (91) 75.5% (83) 70.7% (174)

Support from a Leading SENCO 6.6% (9) 7.3% (8) 6.9% (17)

LEA-based course 46.3% (63) 23.6% (26) 36.2% (89)

LEA/LA file 34.6% (47) 22.7% (25) 29.3% (72)

Award-bearing course 11.0% (15) 10.0% (11) 10.6% (26)

Loan of books 8.8% (12) 7.3% (8) 8.1% (20)

NASEN journals (BJSE, Support for Learning & JORSEN) 36.8% (50) 66.4% (73) 50.0% (123)

NASEN magazine (Special) 38.2% (52) 62.7% (69) 49.2% (121)

Other journals or publications 17.6% (24) 21.8% (24) 19.5% (48)

NASEN courses 10.3% (14) 21.8% (24) 15.4% (38)

Courses (excluding those provided by LEA/LA or NASEN) 16.2% (22) 29.1% (32) 22.0% (54)


103


8

96–110

A smaller number referred to:

• SEN advisors/inspectors, for example, ‘

SEN Head Inspector for Cornwall brought in for a day to help me do an SEN audit and SEF

’.• Membership of a voluntary organisation, for example,

Downs Association, NASEN.• Exhibitions.

There were statistically significant differences betweenthe length of service and the available forms of induction(using

T

-test). More recently appointed SENCOs are morelikely to have had access to shadowing a SENCO, beinga deputy SENCO, support from a Leading SENCO andaccess to other journals.

There were significant positive differences between NASENmembers and LA respondents in terms of their access toNASEN journals,

Special!

and NASEN courses.

The respondents’ ratings of the available induction appearin Table 9.

There were statistically, phase-related differences in ratingsof ‘usefulness’ with primary SENCOs rating LEA courses,LA files and award-bearing courses more highly thansecondary SENCOs.

There were no statistical associations between length ofservice and the rating.

There were also no statistical differences in terms of therating of NASEN members and those from the LA sample.

Discussion

An obvious limitation of this research is that it relies solelyon self-reported data gathered through questionnaires.There may have been different interpretations of some itemsor other misunderstandings. A large number of respondents

did provide their contact details and this opens up thepossibility of extending the study using other methodologies.However, in contrast to some earlier studies, this one isbased on a large sample and has respondents from throughoutEngland.

Several key themes emerge from this research, which areoutlined in this section.

Research into the role of SENCO

The return rate is relatively high (53%). Even allowing forthe slight inflation of return rate from the NASEN respondentswhich occurred when respondents used their own envelopes,the level of response from the NASEN members (61.3%)was particularly high. Members’ feelings of allegiance towardsNASEN may have contributed to this. However, it isnoteworthy that earlier surveys of middle managers (Wise& Bennett, 2003) and of SENCOs (Male, 1996) have alsofound SENCOs willing to engage with research relevant totheir professional role. Beyond the actual return rate, Wiseand Bennett (2003) noted the extent of the comments fromSENCOs; likewise, many of these respondents had takenconsiderable time to provide lengthy explanatory commentsand/or extensive responses to open-ended questions (p. 4).

This survey had heeded Layton’s (2005, p. 55) advice to usean approach that is not too demanding of time. However,the success in ensuring a high return rate needs to be balancedby the decision to limit the complexity of the data. Encouragingly,a high proportion of the respondents provided their contactdetails so that they could be involved in further research.

Overall, therefore, there are indications that SENCOsare willing to invest in research that is related to theirprofessional role.

Profile of SENCOs

The data provides a current profile of those fulfilling therole which can be compared with earlier research. The

Table 9: Respondents’ ratings of ‘usefulness’ of available induction

Primary Secondary

Mean SD Mean SD

Shadowing previous SENCO 7.58 (n = 33) 2.42 6.90 (n = 20) 3.40

Working as a ‘deputy SENCO’ 7.81 (n = 16) 3.19 8.41 (n = 27) 2.13

Contact with support services 7.46 (n = 84) 2.40 6.83 (n = 76) 2.30

Support from a Leading SENCO 8.22 (n = 9) 2.28 8.00 (n = 7) 1.73

LEA-based course 7.68 (n = 57) 2.25 6.27 (n = 22) 2.00

LEA/LA file 6.55 (n = 42) 2.56 4.6 (n = 23) 2.19

Award-bearing course 9.33 (n = 12) 0.99 7.63 (n = 8) 2.33

Loan of books 6.00 (n = 10) 2.90 5.86 (n = 7) 1.57

NASEN journals (BJSE, Support for Learning & JORSEN) 6.07 (n = 41) 1.93 6.2 (n = 65) 2.41

NASEN magazine (Special!) 6.80 (n = 44) 2.15 6.30 (n = 65) 2.14

Other journals or publications 6.95 (n = 22) 2.26 6.82 (n = 22) 2.23

NASEN courses 7.55 (n = 11) 2.38 7.32 (n = 22) 2.06

Courses (excluding those provided by LA or NASEN) 7.10 (n = 20) 1.48 7.42 (n = 31) 1.76

© 2008 The Author

104



8

96–110

distribution of length of service is broadly comparable withthat found by Cole (2005). It suggests that whilst there isattrition, there are also long-serving, highly experiencedSENCOs, some with more than 20 years of experience.

Commenting on the financial recognition of the role iscomplicated by the changes that have taken place in thesalary structure, changes in the remit of the SENCO andcircumstances where the role of the SENCO is an aspectof a wider role. Further difficulties exist because thepopulations included in the various surveys vary. However,the trend for some SENCOs not to be financially rewardedis persistent. It is hard to reconcile the demands andintended status of the role with absence of reward.

Even where financial rewards are present, they may notbe viewed by the recipients as commensurate with theexpectations on them.

‘

Since TLR [Teaching and Learning Responsibility] restructuring, my job has grown out of all proportion. This is a major factor affecting workload. I do have a PA [personal assistant] though, so much of the work related to access arrangements is carried out by her

.’ (SENCO in a secondary school (1050) with TLR1 who lists her responsibilities in addition to that of SENCO as 14–19, Ethnic Minority, Looked after children, ESOL, KS4 curriculum, line management of Gifted and Talented, Personal Development Learning, Work Related Learning coordinator and BTEC Quality nominee)

‘

The SENCO role has broadened and is becoming increasingly demanding over the last five years. More challenging students are coming into mainstream [schools], statements are more difficult to obtain, funding and external agencies are being reduced or disappearing altogether. I have resigned because I find it impossible to fulfil the Head of Inclusion role and teach half a timetable

.’ (SENCO in a secondary school (1250) on TLR1 with 5 years of experience)

All the respondents could identify their line manager.Despite the DfES’s view that normally SENCOs shouldbe members of the senior leadership team, ‘

therebydemonstrating the importance attached to SEN

’ (Perryman,2005), less than 50% of SENCOs in this survey are. Someseemed content not to have the additional responsibilitiesassociated with being a member of the managementteam. This is consistent with Cole’s (2005) speculationthat the operational demands of the role may dominate theworking lives of SENCOs and limit their capacity for otheractivities.

Terminology and structures in this area are evolving. Forexample, annotations indicated that in some cases theterm ‘SENCO’ has been superseded by Inclusion Managerwhilst in other instances an Inclusion Coordinator linemanaged the SENCO. A range of other terms were usedand this aspect merits further investigation.

Retention of SENCOs

Male (1996) suggested that the early warning signals aboutSENCO retention need to be addressed. The NUT surveyechoed these concerns (National Union of Teachers, NUT,2004). This survey again found that a high proportion ofSENCOs plan to leave their current post in the mediumterm. Whilst this could be portrayed negatively, in part,because of demographics, it is inevitable. Even where it isless experienced (younger) staff who are moving awayfrom the role, there are potentially positive outcomes. Somerespondents are aspiring middle managers building up aportfolio of expertise including experience as a SENCO.This is consistent with the role being seen as ‘

a valuableexperience on the career pathways of prospective seniormanagers

’. If the aspirations of this sub-group of respondentsare fulfilled, they will become managers with insights andskills enhanced through their experience of the SENCOrole. However, whatever the potential benefits to the teachingprofession as a whole, it does mean that schools will beinvolved in recruiting SENCOs, sometimes repeatedly. Theimplication is that there should be support to schools bothin terms of managing this recruitment and in ensuringcontinuity for pupils and their parents, and the school staff.

The impact of the workloads was highlighted by Male(1996) and, in terms of bureaucracy linked to the statutoryframework, acknowledged by the Department for Educationand Skills (2004, Section 1.21). Cole’s (2005) found that88% of the SENCOs she surveyed did not feel that therevised Code of Practice had reduced their workloads andWeddell (2004, p. 105) stated that:

‘

SENCOs have a tremendous commitment to their work and that, in some instances, this led them to accept very unreasonable workloads

.’

The data from some respondents re-affirms the continuing,negative impact of workloads. Many perceived the timeallowed for the role as either non-existent or inadequate. Itis noteworthy that this survey took place after therecommendations to reduce the bureaucratic policies,procedure and practices associated with SEN (DfES/CabinetOffice Regulatory Impact Unit, 2004). It would appear thatthe intended benefits of this report’s recommendationsare not yet universal. Thus a role that is perceived by someto lack status and for which patterns of remuneration areinconsistent continues to be demanding of time andexpertise.

Responses to the challenges and opportunities associatedwith the role vary. For some, the potentially negativeaspects of the role are outweighed by other factors. Somerespondents relish the challenges associated with the role,apparently able to ‘navigate the increasingly complexworld of rapidly changing politics and policies’ (Roaf, 2005,p. 51):

‘

I love what I do, the job changes every day

.’ (SENCO in a secondary school (1234) with TLR1 who was appointed through internal advert)


105


8

96–110

Others ‘fatalistic’ SENCOs who, perhaps through coercion,accept that ‘

It is my turn now

’. Others are ‘reluctant’ or‘default’ SENCOs fulfilling the role because of the absenceof any alternative:

‘

No-one wants to do it

.’ (Headteacher who has fulfilled the role in a nursery school (140) for 3 years)

A final group is the ‘negative’ SENCOs:

‘

I hate it! Form filling and lack of outside agency involvement. There is no real support for us as a school or the children and their families so it is all a waste of time

.’ (Deputy Head in a primary school (245) with 3 years and 7 months of experience who was told it was part of the remit when she got the job)

The data from this survey is insufficient to know theproportion of SENCOs in each of these categories, but thisclearly merits further investigation.

Recruitment of SENCOs

Patterns of recruitment also vary across schools and phasesand include examples of both the ‘growing your ownapproach’ (Castagnoli & Cook, 2004) and various forms ofexternal recruitment. The former has potential advantages;the new appointee will know the school, the parents and thepupils. Internal appointment may recognise and celebratestaff expertise. In relation to the internal appointment ofheadteachers, Castagnoli and Cook (2004, p. 11) report thatsome schools felt that ‘

excellent people within

(the school)

are often higher quality than external candidates

’. However,as the DfES acknowledged there are expectations inrelation to knowledge and expertise, and issues of credibility.For some of the internal appointees, their appointmentfollows a period as a deputy SENCO or after a period ofshadowing the SENCO. However, in a small number ofcases the internally appointed SENCO did not have accessto these ‘on-the-job’ experiences or any other form ofinduction. It is questionable how under those circumstancesindividuals have or attain credibility with other stakeholders.Simply naming someone ‘SENCO’ fulfils the duty forevery school to have one but is not sufficient.

With regard to appointment (internal or external), schoolsmay reasonably expect that there is relevant, up-to-dateguidance available to support them in appointing SENCOs.As yet, NASEN has not commented on this aspect. A DfESmessage posted on the SENCO network in 2005, stated thatin appointing SENCOs, schools should have regard to theCode of Practice (Department of Education and Skills,DfES, 2001) and that they would normally expect theSENCO to be a member of the SMT. The responsibility forthe appointments clearly lies with the schools but themessage further states that in making the appointment, wewould expect the headteacher and the school governingbody to take into account factors such as:

‘The skills and experience required in connection with the role, and the extent to which the candidate has

demonstrated these or could acquire them; the range and complexity of SEN represented within the school; and practical issues such as authority (credibility) in relation to members of the teaching staff, parents and external parties.’

(Perryman, 2005)

All of these are laudable sentiments although the evidenceis that a small minority of schools are falling short of theseideals. There is a case for monitoring how schools appointSENCOs and ensuring that the recruitment and selectionprocesses are robust.

This is not to be prescriptive about the appropriate routesince there may be external adverts and internal processesand each have their place. The concern is not so much withthe type of recruitment but with the quality of the processand the subsequent support. A limitation of this research isthat it only identifies the recruitment processes rather thanthe rigour with which they have been applied. For example,a number of SENCOs reported that they had ‘inherited’ therole. Without greater detail and a range of perspectives, thestrengths and limitations of this approach cannot be judgedeither at a school or cohort level.

Preparation for the role

There need to be measures in place to ensure that schoolsgo beyond compliance with the requirement to have aperson labelled as SENCO to having an individual withthe appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes (SpecialEducational Needs Consortium, 1996). The Audit Commission(2002) recommended national qualification asserting that itwould enhance both the skill level and the status ofSENCOs. Progress towards that ideal seems slow. Thissurvey provides evidence about the styles of induction thatthese SENCOs valued and these can be used to informfuture planning. The development of the Leading SENCOrole could potentially address the needs of those who haveassumed the title but without the benefit of timelyinduction. Equally, shadowing a SENCO is positivelyregarded by those new to the post and may boost theself-esteem of the SENCO.

An evolving roleDyson (1990, p. 116) argued that:

‘SENCOs are a dying breed. In 10 years’ time they [SENCOs] will be as outmoded as “remedial teachers” or teachers of special classes are today.’

Whilst this prophecy may appear to have been inaccurate,it is arguable that the enactment of the role of SENCO hasbeen and continues to be transformed (Cole, 2005). Twoissues of Support for Learning, which were devoted toexploring the role of the SENCO, 10 years apart (Vol 10 (2)in 1995 and Vol 20 (2) in 2005), confirm that the role isevolving and is bedevilled by unresolved tensions (Roaf,2005). Based on her research, Cole (2005, p. 303) arguedthat the role of the SENCO was ‘still under construction’and questions who should be involved in this process. Morerecently, evidence has shown that various stakeholders have

© 2008 The Author106 Journal compilation © 2008 nasen

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 8 96–110

differing views of the role (Pearson & Ralph, 2007) andindividuals may have only partial understandings of it.Schools that adopt a parochial approach may be vulnerableto making a restricted interpretation because of a limitedawareness of information and a lack of awareness ofalternative models. The associated disadvantages may beparticularly apparent in internal appointments.

Concurrent with evolutions in the understanding of the role,there are challenges in terms of recruitment and retention.These may be ameliorated through appropriate status andfinancial recognition but in relation to these a patchy,inconsistent picture emerges. Secondary schools morefrequently used external adverts and the posts were moreoften associated with allowances. Given the larger size ofthe schools in terms of staff and pupils, this is perhapsunderstandable. However, the size and phase of the schoolare not the only determinants. For example, a respondentworking in a primary school with 17 staff and 450 childrencommented that she originally worked on supply – thedeputy head took on a class and she took a job on a part-time temporary basis and eventually became permanent.There is no allowance associated with the role and shecommented about the short-term (1–5 years) prospects:

‘Remain the same unless new Head appointed – what the Head sees as the future for SEN provision in the school will change my role.’

Clearly the internal priorities of a school, set throughwhatever mechanism, influence the perception of the role.Status and financial rewards may be affected.

Consideration of recruitment, qualifications, induction andremuneration does not tell the whole story. A recurrenttheme through the responses to induction and intentionrelated to the social dimension. For example, award-bearingcourses have the potential to develop critical thinkingwithin a community of peers thus avoiding some of theprobable professional isolation of SENCOs. Annotations onthe questionnaire asserted the value of organised forms ofcollaboration and networking within schools or through theLA or other organisations:

‘My retention of the role is largely down to the close team I work with and the students we support, both of which I would miss hugely.’ (SENCO in a secondary school (900) with 4 years of experience)

This example does highlight that despite the workloads, thepotential lack of status including appropriate financialreward and the possible professional isolation, there aremany individuals who continue to find aspects of this rolesufficiently attractive, to wish to continue as SENCOs.They relish the challenge, opportunities and rewards.Some report that the situation has improved. The majoritysaw this as a dynamic post in the sense that they sawopportunities to influence and be influenced. Theirprojections of the future of the role are beyond the scope ofthis paper but will appear elsewhere.

ConclusionThe data highlight both the commonalities and theuniqueness of individuals and their circumstances. Thereare examples of SENCOs who have made a long-termcommitment to the role, who have management roles intheir schools, and who have undertaken training includingachieving qualifications, sometimes at their own expense.However, the situation is far from uniform and it is possibleto identify the antithesis of this. Perhaps unsurprisinglygiven the variability, attitudes towards the role and theperception of its desirability differ.

To gain a greater understanding of the variations in thecircumstances of SENCOs, NASEN has commissioneda further survey which will explore their working lives.That should help to illuminate the intra-school differencesin the value ascribed to the role. Together the two sets of datawill inform an exploration of the current conceptualisationand a reflection on the scale of the reappraisal required.

This research suggests that, in the medium term, there willcontinue to be a high level of turnover amongst SENCOs.The underlying factors are complex including the greyingof the profession, job-related factors and the role beingused as a stepping stone in career progression. Some of thefactors such as nearness to retirement are unalterable, somehave potential long-term benefits such as an increased numberof headteachers with SENCO experience, and others reflectthe tensions, ambiguities and demands of the role. There isscope to reduce the latter and all stakeholders have a role toplay (DfES/Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit, 2004).

Gent et al. (2006) adopted the more positive term,‘retention challenge’, in preference to ‘retention crisis’.This approach seems justified in relation to SENCOs –although there continues to be attrition, the rate has notincreased dramatically in the last 10 years. But that is notgrounds for complacency; rather it should be the catalystfor thorough succession planning. Much can be learnt fromthe existing published materials and experience to ensurestrong recruitment routes, universal training and soundinduction. However, these need be viewed alongside acomprehensive understanding of the evolving role ofthe SENCO. For example, there needs to be detailedknowledge of the remit, expectations of the role in thecontext of current staffing structures, for example, postinitiatives such as Work Force Reform, and inclusiveeducation. Strategic planning would be also facilitatedthrough a more developed understanding of the aspirationsand career pathways of individuals. This work should beundertaken by a range of stakeholders including thegovernment and NASEN.

Over 10 years ago, Male (1996) expressed concern that theanswer to the question ‘Who would want the role?’ wouldbe a deafening silence. In that period, there have beenmultiple policy initiatives, reams of guidance and extensivesupporting publications. However, based on this sample, itwould appear that the attractiveness of the role is highlyvariable. Adopting Male’s metaphor, rather than silence

© 2008 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2008 nasen 107


there is the noise of both retreating and approachingfootsteps. The challenge is to ensure that the balancebetween these meets the needs of the education system, theschools, the pupils and their families. Some of the retreatingfootsteps may exert a positive influence at the higher levelof management. Responding to the challenges may requirea re-formulation of the role of SENCO to align it withcurrent thinking on structure or may require the developmentof a more radical approach to diversity in schools. Whateverroutes are pursued, this should be done sensitively incollaboration with the stakeholders, both to benefit fromtheir insights and to maintain morale. In that spirit, perhaps thelast word should go to a respondent from this current study:

‘SENCOs must be listened to and taken seriously to be able to do their job most effectively and therefore retain their enthusiasm/motivation for the role.’ (SENCO in a secondary school (1400) with 6 years of experience)

AcknowledgementsThis research was commissioned by nasen to inform theirwork and influence national policy. I would like to thank allthose who responded to the survey. Thanks to Dr MattHomer (University of Leeds) who provided support withthe statistical analysis.

Address for correspondence Sue Pearson, School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LJ2 9JT, UK. Email: [email protected].

ReferencesAudit Commission (2002) Special Educational Needs:

A Mainstream Issue. Wetherby: Audit Commission.Castagnoli, P. & Cook, N. (2004) Growing Your Own

Leaders: The Impact of Professional Development on School Improvement. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).

Cole, B. (2005) ‘Mission impossible? Special educational needs, inclusion and the re-conceptualisation of the role of the SENCo in England and Wales.’ European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20 (2), pp. 287–307.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (2001) Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. London: Stationery Office.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003) Every Child Matters. Nottingham: DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2004) Removing Barriers to Achievement: The Government’s Strategy for Inclusion. London: DfES.

Department of Education and Skills (DfES) (2001) Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. Nottingham: DfES.

Department of Education and Skills (DfES)/Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit (2004) Special Educational Needs Bureaucracy Project Summary Report. <http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/documents/pst/pdf/sen.pdf> (accessed 4 July 2007).

Dyson, A. (1990) ‘Effective learning consultancy: a future role for special needs co-coordinators?’ Support for Learning, 5 (3), pp. 116–27.

Evans, C., Docking, J. & Evans, R. (1996) ‘Improving support for children with special needs.’ Support for Learning, 11 (3), pp. 99–104.

Gent, D., MacBeath, J., Hobby, R., Liss, R., Benson, T., Smith, F., et al. (2006) Recruiting Headteachers and Senior Leaders: Overview of Research Findings. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.

Layton, L. (2005) ‘Special educational needs co-ordinators

and leadership: a role too far?’ Support for Learning, 20 (2), pp. 53–60.

Lewis, A., Neill, S. & Campbell, R. (1996) The Implementation of the Code of Practice in Primary and Secondary Schools: A National Survey of the Perspectives of Special Educational Needs Coordinators. London: National Union of Teachers (NUT).

Lewis, A., Neill, S. & Campbell, J. (1997) ‘SENCOs and the code: a national survey.’ Support for Learning, 12 (1), pp. 3–9.

Male, D. (1996) ‘Special needs coordinators’ career continuation plans.’ Support for Learning, 11 (2), pp. 88–92.

NASEN (2001) NASEN Policy on Special Educational Needs Coordinators. Tamworth: NASEN.

National Union of Teachers (NUT) (2004) Survey of Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators and the Revised Code of Practice. London: NUT.

Pearson, S. & Ralph, S. (2007) ‘The identity of SENCOs: insights through images.’ Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7 (1), pp. 36–45.

Perryman, J. (2005) DfES Come Through. SENCO forum. <http://lists.becta.org.uk/pipermail/senco-forum/2005-December/047523.html> (accessed 12th April 2008).

Roaf, C. (2005) ‘Editorial.’ Support for Learning, 20 (2), pp. 50–2.

Special Educational Needs Consortium (1996) Professional Development to Meet Special Educational Needs (Report to the Department of Education and Employment). Stafford: Flash Ley Resource Centre.

Teacher Training Agency (TTA) (1998a) National Standards for Head Teachers. London: TTA.

Teacher Training Agency (TTA) (1998b) National Standards for Special Needs Co-ordinators. London: TTA.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/documents/pst/pdf/sen.pdf

http://lists.becta.org.uk/pipermail/senco-forum/2005-December/047523.html



Teacher Training Agency (TTA) (2003) Raising Standards and Tackling Workloads: A National Agreement. London: TTA.

Tomlinson, S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Weddell, K. (2004) ‘Life as a SENCO.’ British Journal of Special Education, 31 (2), p. 105.

Wise, C. & Bennett, N. (2003) The Future Role of Middle Leaders in Secondary Schools. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).

The recruitment, induction and retention of SENCOs.

This survey has been commissioned by NASEN and the findings will be used in published material related to SENCOs.

The anonymity of all respondents is guaranteed.

School details1. Size of school ________ approximately2. Number of teaching staff ______________ approximately3. Age-range __________________

Current role4. How long have you been the SENCO at this school? __________ years5. Are you a teacher in the school? Yes / No (Please circle)6. Are there any allowances linked to the role of SENCO? TLR1/TLR2/other (Please circle)7. If you are not employed as a teacher, have you QTS? Yes / No (Please circle)8. If no, what is your highest relevant qualification?

9. What other responsibilities do you have?

10. In your school, is the SENCO part of the Senior Management Team? Yes/No (Please circle)11. Who is your line manager? (Please name their role)

Recruitment12. How were you recruited to the post of SENCO? (Please tick one or more of the boxes)

External advert for the post of SENCO

External advert for a post which included role of SENCO

Internal advert for post of SENCO

Internal advert for a post that included the responsibilities of SENCO

Part of a rotation of responsibilities within the school

Part of a re-organisation within the school

Arose through Work Force Reform

Volunteered for the role when the opportunity arose

‘Inherited’ when a colleague left

Other – please give details

© 2008 The AuthorJournal compilation © 2008 nasen 109


Induction and Training 13. What SEN/inclusion qualifications did you have at the time of your appointment as SENCO in your current school?

(Please tick as many as necessary.)

14. In your first year as SENCO, what types of induction were available? Please answer in relation to your first year as a SENCO whether or not this was in your current school. Tick as many boxes as necessary in the available column. Please rate the type(s) of induction you used for overall usefulness on a scale 1- 5 with 5 as highest.

Retention 15. Thinking about the role of SENCO in your school, how do you foresee it changing in the short (1 - 5 years) term?

Masters linked to SEN/inclusion

PG Diploma linked to SEN/inclusion

PG Certificate related to SEN/inclusion

LEA- based qualification linked to SEN/inclusion

Experience in one or more previous schools

None

Other –please give details

Available Useful1 = not useful5 = very useful

Shadowing previous SENCO

Working as a ‘deputy’ SENCO

Contact with the support services in your area.

Support from a Leading SENCO

LEA based course (Please indicate the length of course).

LEA/LA file

Award bearing course (Please provide details)

Loan of books

NASEN journals (BJSE, Support for Learning, JORSEN)

NASEN magazine (Special!)

Other journals or publications

NASEN courses

Courses (excluding those provided by LA or NASEN)

Other – please give details



16. In the medium term (5 – 7 years) how do you see your own future? (Please tick as many boxes as necessary)

17. If you are likely to move away from being a SENCO, what factors are influencing your decision? (Please tick as many as necessary.)

Have you any further comments about the role of the SENCO with specific reference to recruitment, induction and retention?

If you are willing to be contacted about further, related research, please provide your details below.

Name

School

School address

Email

Thank you for your support in completing this questionnaire. Please return to Sue Pearson, School of Education,University of Leeds, Leeds. LS2 9JT

I would like to continue being a SENCO at my present school.

I would like to stop being the SENCO.

I am hoping for promotion in my current school including remaining SENCO.

I am hoping for promotion in my current school but not remaining SENCO.

I am planning to retire.

I would like to be a SENCO in another school.

I would like to move into a more specialised provision.

I would like to take on a management role in this school. E.g. headship, deputy head.

I would like to take on a management role in another school. E.g. headship, deputy head

I would like to join an advisory service.

I would like to leave teaching.

Other

Factor Strength of factor on my decision

1 = weak influence5 = strong influence

Lack of job satisfaction

Heavy workload

Ready for a new professional challenge

Alternative career opportunities within school(s)

School restructuring

Desire for increased salary

Personal/family factors

Retirement

Other: please specify

Documents

Deafened by silence or by the sound of footsteps? An investigation of the recruitment, induction and retention of special educational needs coordinators (SENCOs) in England