RAS syndrome and SEND needs
"SEND" is not a useful category
Redundant words or huge conceptual confusions?
RAS syndrome, apparently first coined in the pages of The New Scientist, stands for Redundant Acronym Syndrome syndrome. If the repetition of the word “syndrome” annoys you, then you have just got the point. It refers to phrases such as “PIN number”, “ATM machine”, “ABS braking” or “DC Comics” where a word that makes up part of an acronym is repeated in full after the acronym. It’s a curious phenomenon, not least because it doesn’t apply to all acronyms. Nobody talks about “the BFG giant”, “the FBI bureau”, or “the BBC corporation”.1
One phrase I have seen used in education that fits this description is “SEND needs” (where SEND stands for “Special Educational Needs and Disabilities”). For about half of my teaching career, we used the term “SEN” rather than “SEND”, and even then, the phrase “SEN needs” would have been immediately understood. The reason for the repetition is that SEND (or SEN) is often used to mean disabilities and conditions. We talk about meeting the needs of pupils with SEND, and forget that SEND is meant to refer to the needs, not to conditions and disabilities. Interpreted this way, the SEND label discourages schools from recognising that pupils frequently need support for reasons other than disabilities and conditions.
I have come to think that confusion between “pupils with identifiable conditions and disabilities” and “pupils who need support” is the fundamental problem with the SEND system. When people stop thinking of SEND as a category that includes needs and start treating it as if it refers exclusively to a disability or a condition, it causes significant problems. A system can either prioritise addressing needs or classifying disabilities and conditions, but there will always be trade-offs. A system that gives the most support cannot be assumed to be similar to one that does the most classifying and diagnosing.
Support versus diagnosis
For example, pupils need support if they are falling behind academically. But falling behind is not, in itself, a disability or a condition. Even when a disability or condition could plausibly be identified as the cause, it might, nevertheless, be the case that the best support is to help the child catch up, rather than to address the disability or condition directly. Poor readers who have been identified as dyslexic need pretty much the same interventions as anyone else struggling with reading. Inattentive children diagnosed with ADHD typically need the same interventions as any other inattentive children. Clear boundaries are essential for all pupils exhibiting poor behaviour, not just those with a specific diagnosis.
I’m not denying that there are cases where diagnosis or identification is a vital part of helping a pupil. It just cannot be assumed to be useful for all pupils who need support. The widespread assumption that diagnosis and identification should be the priority in all cases seems to be based on an ideological belief. It assumes that it is not normal for some pupils to need extra support and, therefore, such pupils are special and we have to find out what’s wrong with them.
The euphemism treadmill and the SEND Code of Practice
Language has played an important part in how we have confused needs and conditions. The psychologist Steven Pinker wrote about the “euphemism treadmill”, where words referring to sensitive subjects change according to fashion, without underlying attitudes actually being changed. This has affected the entire area of SEND, with almost all labels changing over time. A particular problem has been with those children on the margins, who have a genuine need for support with learning, but where the word “disability” does not seem appropriate. Words such as “handicaps”, “difficulties” and “needs” have been used to be inclusive of problems that do not involve a distinct disability. They soon become euphemisms for disabilities.
We can see how impossible the situation is by looking at the SEND Code of Practice, which lays out the responsibilities for schools:
xiii. A child or young person has SEN if they have a learning difficulty or disability which calls for special educational provision to be made for him or her.
xiv. A child of compulsory school age or a young person has a learning difficulty or disability if he or she:
has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others of the same age, or
has a disability which prevents or hinders him or her from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age in mainstream schools or mainstream post-16 institutions
The first bullet point in section xiv. makes the definition highly inclusive. There is always a spectrum of difficulty in learning, and as the 51% of pupils with the least difficulty in learning are a majority, then the other 49% must have greater difficulty than the majority. Only the word “significantly” limits the recognition of a child as having SEND. As a result, the proportion of pupils who are identified as having SEND at some point in their time at school has repeatedly been over 40%. While it is perfectly reasonable to say that over 40% of children will need some extra support at some point, it is ludicrous to say they have, or once had, a disability or diagnosable condition.
One might reasonably argue that it might be helpful to distinguish between “disabilities” and other needs, including some diagnosable conditions that are, nevertheless, not what might commonly be called a disability. However, anti-discrimination law also uses a definition of disability that is extremely broad. Again, from the SEND Code of Practice:
‘…a physical or mental impairment which has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’. This definition provides a relatively low threshold and includes more children than many realise: ‘long-term’ is defined as ‘a year or more’ and ‘substantial’ is defined as ‘more than minor or trivial’.
“Impairment” is not defined in the SEND Code of Practice, which again leaves schools with extra duties towards another broad and ambiguously defined category of pupils. As well as a responsibility not to directly or indirectly discriminate against pupils in this category, the SEND Code of Practice explains that schools:
…must make reasonable adjustments, including the provision of auxiliary aids and services, to ensure that disabled children and young people are not at a substantial disadvantage compared with their peers. This duty is anticipatory – it requires thought to be given in advance to what disabled children and young people might require and what adjustments might need to be made to prevent that disadvantage.
We have a system that is meant to provide support to those who need it. However, the support is driven by special consideration for certain (often somewhat arbitrary) categories of pupils, rather than a universal concern for the interests of all pupils. The system fails because it tries to force academic deficits and behavioural problems into a framework built around disabilities and conditions. Categorisation then becomes the main driver for the entire system. In the ‘00s, schools seemed to be driving the rush to categorise and diagnose as many children as possible. Now, it seems to be driven by parents. We will only be able to meet genuine needs — and properly support those with real disabilities or conditions that require targeted interventions — if we abandon the term “SEND” altogether. We need to disentangle children’s behavioural and academic needs from unnecessary and irrelevant labels. Policymakers need to put an end to the assumption that normal differences in attitude, personality, ability, attainment, and knowledge indicate a diagnosable condition or disability.
I haven’t actually checked this, but they all sound really odd to me.