“This is theirs”: The implementation of the South Lanarkshire Framework for supporting pupils with severe and profound needs

Abstract

This paper details the development, implementation and evaluation of the South Lanarkshire Framework for Supporting Children with Severe and Profound Learning Needs (“The Framework”). The document assists Scottish schools in taking forward the Curriculum for Excellence for this group of learners and in building capacity amongst staff. The guidance and resources place emphasis on the identification of relevant and individualised learning outcomes and on teaching approaches which promote pupils’ development in key areas. Seven Additional Support Needs (ASN) establishments in South Lanarkshire completed a pre- and post- audit of curricular practice and 24 staff completed an evaluative questionnaire. Eight staff also participated in semi-structured interviews. Analyses indicated that the Framework has influenced teachers in terms of their mind-set, practice and ability to set appropriate targets. Responses also suggested that the document has led to increased collaboration amongst staff and has been shared positively with parents. The findings are discussed in relation to implications for practice and future research directions.

Systematic review of the evidence to support expert practice in the education and care of children and young people with special educational needs and disability in the UK

“…Appraisal of qualitative studies is summarised in Table 5. Six studies did not detail the recruitment strategy fully (Davis, Carter, Myers, et al., 2018; Franklin and Goff, 2019; Loyd, 2015; Maher and Fitzgerald, 2020; Pierce and Maher, 2020; Rees, e al., 2017). Four studies failed to address researcher‐participant relationship or contingency planning to reduce researcher influence (Downs, Knowles, Fairclough, et al., 2014; Pierce and Maher, 2020; Rees, et al., 2017; Young, et al., 2016).…”

“…Four studies reported the efficacy of frameworks of provision (Castro, Grande, and Palikara, 2019; Gutman, Vorhaus, Burrows, et al., 2018; Rees, Tully, and Ferguson, 2017; Stelmaszczyk, 2018). The risk elements related to lack of detail of the researcher's relationship with participants and of the recruitment strategy.…”

“…Six studies did not detail the recruitment strategy fully (Davis, Carter, Myers, et al., 2018; Franklin and Goff, 2019; Loyd, 2015; Maher and Fitzgerald, 2020; Pierce and Maher, 2020; Rees, e al., 2017). Four studies failed to address researcher‐participant relationship or contingency planning to reduce researcher influence (Downs, Knowles, Fairclough, et al., 2014; Pierce and Maher, 2020; Rees, et al., 2017; Young, et al., 2016). A clear statement of study aims was not discerned in the report by Maher and Fitzgerald (2020).…”

“…The evidence related both to interventions directly for disabled children and young people and to frameworks to enhance their education and care provision. There was rigorous evidence utilising mixed methods (Rees, et al., 2017; Young, et al., 2016). The study by Rees et al provided the strongest evidence of efficacy of frameworks, with large effect sizes from empirical data, illuminated by qualitative evidence.…”

“…Disparities in quality were seen between different local authorities, between schools and between children with different types of need. Rees, et al (2017) evaluated the South Lanarkshire framework for children with severe and profound learning needs through audit of curricular practice, questionnaires and interviews. Quantitative findings showed large effect sizes for varied outcomes (Approaches to teaching and learning d = À1.23; Assessment, monitoring and targetsetting d = À1.86; Health and well-being, and assessing and addressing challenging behaviour d = À1.20).…”