TES SEN Show part 2 - Soundbeam and Evidence for Learning

I hope those of you on half term have had a lovely relaxing week. I would like to say mine has been relaxing but far from it. We've been busy making Dispense the Sense activity cards which we have for sale and also ready for upcoming events as well as planning for Christmas sensory stories and 12 days of Christmas activity boxes. Then we've been preparing for Flo's conference at the end of November. As well as general school work, rehearsing for Annie which I am performing in November and general life... well it's been busy and has flown by. 

I have planned a new autumn themed TACPAC and sensory story so will share those with you over the up and coming weeks (don't forget we have TACPAC and story massage resources free to download from our TES page - sensory_dispensary). We also have a few people interested in writing guest blogs which will be very exciting. If you have anything you would like to share or write about on our blog, please get in touch with us. Or if you have any topics you would like us to write about, please let us know. 

Anyway, the topic of today's post is the 2nd half of the TES SEN Show, I know it feels like forever ago now. 

Firstly, I wanted to talk about Soundbeam. Many of you will have probably heard of soundbeam and I hope it is in every school around the country, although I know it's not as we don't have one. 

'Soundbeam is an award-winning 'touch free' device which uses sensor technology to translate body movement into music and sound. It gives children and adults the opportunity, regardless of their impairments or disability, to play music.' 

Welch et al (2001) undertook a nation-wide research project known as PROMISE (Provision of Music in Special Education) which was funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Trust and supported by the Royal Institute for the Blind. 53 special schools across the country took part. The findings were mixed. They found that only 5% of participating children received music therapy. We all hear how beneficial it is however it's not so easy to gain funding for this and also very difficult to find a qualified music therapist. One of our partner schools employs an amazing music therapist for one or two days a week but he works all over and says himself that he is in such high demand as there is a lack of trained music therapists in our area and I'm sure many others. 

The results highlighted that headteachers placed a high value on music as part of their curriculum however there were no specific models of music curriculum as such designed for pupils with SLD or PMLD. The resources and types of music delivered in the participating schools were mainly percussion. The majority of music coordinators had no qualifications in music and music CPD was seen as 'adhoc' and depended mainly on local provision. 

It was also noted that music is a significant component in the daily lives of many of our pupils; radio in the morning at home, music played on the taxi, signify songs throughout the day, their favourite music incorporated into the day. I know we use music all the time. I'm sure Jo Grace would also add that music is a great way to support mental health and wellbeing. I'm going to bring out my inner teenager here and embarrassingly refer to One Tree Hill. One Tree Hill as a TV programme that related to me during my teenage years and had an inner theme of music. They portrayed the effect music has on people including young people growing up and learning to deal with the problems life throws at them. Music was seen as a healing power due to its relatable song lyrics and its power to set or change a mood. Music can set the 'feel' of an environment, as teachers, Hannah and I often use music for this reason. We are aware of how powerful our sense of smell is as it is linked to the emotional part of our brain and can transport us back to a memory. I think music can do the same for a lot of people, it definitely does for me. I have seen the power of music for my pupils, by the end of this term some of my class were responding to my signify songs for the start and end of a session. One of Hannah's pupils loves music, the music played or sung to her can often determine her mood. She knows what she likes and more importantly what she doesn't like!

So how can we incorporate effective music provision into the curriculum for our learners with SLD and PMLD? I think Soundbeam is a wonderful example of this. Soundbeam equipment allows our pupils with learning and physical disabilities to make music. It is a control box and sensor beams that track any movement the pupil makes to create sound. The 'beams' are incredibly clever, as demonstrated to us at the TES SEN Show. They are adjustable in order to be personal to every pupil. The length of the beam sensors can be altered for each child for those who whizz around the room to motivate them to control their movement within a smaller area or the sensitivity can be adapted such as for a child with very limited movement. There are so many learning opportunities to be gained by exploring this equipment, the first and most important I think is that the child can have completely independent control. In a world where they rely on others for so much, it is lovely to watch someone with PMLD, perhaps after hundreds of attempts, learn that they are controlling something. How about have them in charge of music in assemblies or the school nativity, record their own CD. I just think it's lovely. 

I have no training in music, and being honest I have always found music sessions for my SLD classes difficult beyond the drumming call and response rhythm type activities. But the lovely lady on the stall gave me the confidence and that's what is brilliant about Soundbeam, that you don't have to be an expert and you need no training. It is so simple to use and is led by the child! 

We are currently fundraising for a Soundbeam, hopefully by the end of the year we will have it and can share with you the impact it has for our pupils. If you have any stories of using Soundbeam, please share them, we would love to hear them. You can also view many lovely videos on their website. Make sure also take a look at their autumn newsletter here. 

Cheng et al (2009) Researching and developing music provision in Special Schools in England for children and young people with complex needs, Australian Journal of Music Education 2(22) 

Another topic I would like to talk about is recording of evidence. We currently use tapestry, however we feel it has many limitations. Hannah had read up a little on Evidence for Learning and when we spotted them at TES SEN Show, we were quick to head over and pick their brains. 

Evidence for learning is an IPAD app assessment record tool similar to Tapestry. However, there are notable differences. Firstly, Evidence for Learning is a system which can be personalised to each child, where as Tapestry was designed for the EYFS framework although I know it also includes the p-scales. Well we all know they are on their way out anyway and many schools use other assessment systems such as PIVATS, MAPP, Routes for Learning, B Squared, Individual Learning Plans and many more which don't fit with the Tapestry framework. We end up uploading evidence to tapestry as learning journals for parents but also filing evidence in assessment folders and highlighting PIVATS lozenges to link to pupil outcomes as well as annotating ILPs. It is very time consuming. Evidence for learning can be designed for each pupil's personal targets and even further than this can include steps of progress towards a target for example the 4 learning areas of MAPP; fluency, prompting, maintenance and generalisation. Other benefits are that it can be used offline, it can be shared with parents who can comment and upload their own evidence, it can produce printable learning journeys and assessment document evidence. Evidence for Learning could be used to record ALL progress in ALL areas such as ILP targets and progress towards EHCP targets, PIVATS or other assessment framework targets, physio or MOVE targets, pretty much anything and any other wow moments you want to record. 

This is in no way endorsed and we do not currently use this product, however on returning to school we passed it on to our leadership as we felt that as teachers, this was a tool which could be an effective way of capturing evidence as well as being practical. Swiss Cottage School also use Evidence for Learning and are big advocates for it. You can give it a go with a 14 day free trial. Contact them for more details. 

If you are back at school tomorrow we hope you have a great start back. 

Here is a link to Flo's forum in November where Hannah and I will be attending. It's an opportunity not to miss if you can convince your school to let you go! 

Our review of the Rochford Review and the Government's response

All opinions shared in this blog are our own personal views and do not reflect the views of our school.

What is the Rochford Review?

In 2015 a report was commissioned, chaired by Diane Rochford to review the statutory assessment frameworks for pupils working below the national curriculum standards.


The review was released in October 2016 with the following key recommendations:

• The removal of p-scales 
• Interim pre-key stage standards to be used to assess pupils working below the National Curriculum standards but whom are engaged in subject specific learning 
• Schools should assess pupils in 4 areas of need as outlined by EHCPs 
• Schools should have a statutory duty to assess pupils not engaged in subject specific learning in the area of cognition and learning using the 7 aspects of the engagement scale. However there should be no requirement to submit data 
• Schools should be free to decide their own approach to assessment in line with their chosen curriculum 
• The changes in assessment for pupils with SEND should be included in initial teacher training 
• Schools should work to share their good practice and seek support from one another 

Earlier this year there was a consultation period which received 594 responses. The Government analysed the initial report and the responses received and have this week published their response: Primary school pupil assessment: Rochford Review recommendations Equalities impact assessment

What are the main points that have been outlined?

Pupils who are engaged in subject specific learning but are working below national curriculum standards will be assessed using the interim pre-key stage standards as of the year 2018/19.

Pupils not engaged in subject specific learning and working below the level of the interim pre-key stage standards will be assessed in the area of cognition and learning using the 7 areas of the engagement scale: In recognising the complexity of need of these pupils and the inadequacy of a linear assessment framework, the government expects pupils to be assessed tailored to their personal needs and unique profile using the 7 areas of engagement however the school feel best fits their curriculum model.

The Rochford Review recommended that schools will not submit the data they collect for pupils not engaged in subject-specific learning when assessing them against the 7 areas of engagement. This is because the Rochford review placed a high value on schools having the freedom to assess pupils in a way that meets the needs of their pupils and in line with their curriculum model. Standardising an assessment model to submit results would not achieve this.

‘One of the Rochford Review’s guiding principles was that equality is not always about inclusion. Sometimes equality is about altering the approach according to the needs of the pupils. While an inclusive approach to assessment is desirable where it is both feasible and valuable, it is equally true that the fairest and most positive way to provide for some children is to use a different approach.’ I believe this statement reflects what professionals working in the SEND sector have been waiting a long time to read.


What is wrong with the p-scales?
Having used PIVATS to assess pupils with SLD and PMLD I have found limitations. Firstly, p-scales are a linear progression framework which outline what the children should be demonstrating and the next steps. A barrier of PIVATS is that the individual lozenges (targets or achievements) should be attained across one level before progressing to the next and at many levels there are lots of lozenges to achieve. I recognise that PIVATS has helped many teachers break down the often perceived as ambiguous statement jumps of the p-scales, however aren’t we just fitting our children into linear stacked boxes? Some children may also reach a peak with such an assessment system, they may be making progress in other areas however they don’t fit in any more of the boxes, or even worse teachers are seeking to find a very tenuous link to prove progress. Much research has been carried out that demonstrates that pupils with a range of severe, complex and profound needs have spiky profiles of attainment which doesn’t reflect accurately using a linear assessment framework.

Another problem I found with PIVATS was the need to show progress on a tracker. My pupils often made progress in areas related to their social, physical, sensory processing or independence skills as these were important areas of development personalised to the pupil, however they are not reflected on a tracker. With the pressure to make progress teachers often find themselves teaching to PIVATS targets. By doing this we are not teaching in a creative or innovative way and teaching around the needs of the child.

In an article written by TES they quoted Diane Rochford’s concerns that the p-scales are often used incorrectly to shape a curriculum which restricts schools in delivering a creative and innovative and pupil centred approach.

It is important to recognise the changing face of SEND. Our profile of children is becoming more and more complex with the advances in the medical profession in relation to premature birth, an increase in drug and alcohol use throughout pregnancy and the increase in undiagnosed neurological disorders. In our setting the lower end of the school has an increasing ratio of pupils with PMLD and complex medical needs. To meet their needs we should be aiming towards a personalised curriculum approach that meets the needs of these pupils. Following a lot of personal research, school visits and trailing in practice we feel an informal/ semi-formal approach is successful. However after p4 the p-scales are divided by subject based learning. This can often present schools with a dilemma and the questions, what curriculum are we expected to follow? Do you pupils have an entitlement to the national curriculum? What will Ofsted expect to see?

The fountain dale school highlights that pupils working at p5 are typically working at age 24 months, would you expect a 24 month old to be learning subjects. It’s even worse for KS2 and 3 pupils who are at this developmental level but expected to be learning complex subject topic. And this is not even the place for the argument ‘but you can make that topic sensory’ because I would have too much to say!

The p-scales were also designed as a pre-national curriculum assessment tool and were not updated when the new national curriculum was put in place in 2014. The p-scales do not follow on to the National Curriculum leaving a big jump between p8 and NC levels. 

Alternative assessment approaches

There are a range of other assessment frameworks used to assess the progress of pupils with PMLD/ CLDD/ SLD. Our survey results highlighted this in our previous blog post.

An assessment system we have found to be successful is MAPP. MAPP is a system that allows you to input personal targets and look beyond subject areas. Targets can be mapped around any development area that would positively impact on the child. MAPP recognised that is it not accurate to simply tick a target as achieved or met, as is the case with many assessment tools based on p-scales. They break down the acquisition of a target into four stages of which each stage has a progression. The stages are prompting, fluency, maintenance and generalisation. It is recognised that maintaining a skill and generalising it is just as important to record as them demonstrating it. It is a system that slows the pace of learning down to meet the child, not expecting them to continuously move forward in their development path to meet their expected outcomes.

Earlier in the year, we visited Chailey Heritage School. Simon Yates, the head teacher, accompanied by two members of his staff presented on their curriculum and assessment model at the Best of British Special Education Forum earlier this year. They left listeners with jaws on the floor at the concept of getting rid of data. Chailey strongly believe in their pupil case study assessment system. Their target setting, my next steps are designed around the needs of the children, similar to MAPP. They evidence progress using observation notes in a very thorough and effective system. There is no data to track, no pupils are compared but the journey of learning is still clear to see. 

What are the engagement scales?
The engagement profile and scale was devised by professor Barry Carpenter as part of his work on the Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Project.

The project outlined the importance of engagement. They explain that engagement is not just being on task but being immersed in the learning activity in relation to the activity itself, their learning environment and those around them. Many children with PMLD/ CLDD/ SLD have difficulties engaging in their learning due to a range of barriers. The project outlined that a child must be engaged before any learning can take place.

The project highlights the 7 stages of engagement: awareness, curiosity, investigation, discovery, anticipation, persistence and initiation. The engagement scale is a tool to measure the progress towards engagement. It is a score based system that marks each area out of 4 and can measure progress over time.

Engagement is clear to observe and assess when working wit pupils with PMLD however, I have previously questioned the impact of measuring engagement with some of our SLD. I have looked through the PowerPoint below and found useful examples to aid my understanding of its application to pupils with SLD. However, I have worked with a number of pupils with SLD who are well engaged with activities, eager to learn and fully immersed in an activity. We may not be able to track much progress with these pupils.

Powerpoint found on Barry Carpenters website: https://barrycarpentereducation.com/tag/engagement/

Click on the link in the post: Interpreting Engagement ; pathways for children with Complex Needs

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Engaging-Learners-Learning-Difficulties-Disabilities/dp/0415812747/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505663272&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=barry+cerpenter

How we have implemented them at school?

Hannah implemented the engagement scales last year with her PMLD class and used them alongside PIVATS and MAPP. Hannah found them effective to use to measure engagement within a session. Hannah’s class uses a lot of repetition to support the needs of her pupils, therefore the engagement scales provided a tool to assess the progress of the pupils engagement with an activity over time. This may prove more difficult for pupils with SLD who have a more diverse timetable.

I have recently introduced them with my CLDD class. My team have been enthusiastic and committed to learning more about the engagement scales and are enjoying being able to observe the progress a child is making. By encouraging the whole team to use them, the team enjoy the responsibility and being included and can recognise the impact of the session and the support they are providing.

I would not like to use the engagement scales as a stand-alone form of assessment. I recognise the value in assessing the development in engagement, however they do not record the specific achievements of the child. In practice, I think using MAPP and the engagement scales complement each other.

We will attach two examples of the engagement scale progress sheets we have devised and have been using to our TES page: Sensory_dispensary or click here.


Things we like about the Government response to Rochford review:

• Supports that for pupils working below the interim pre-key stage standards a non-subject specific curriculum is supported 
• Recognises the limitations of the p-scales 
• Is not expecting engagement scale data to be submitted 
• There is still a freedom for schools to adopt an assessment framework that works for their children and their curriculum 

Things we are concerned about:

• The use of the engagement scales were never designed to be a primary assessment tool. They do not measure overall progress, only progress in engagement 
• We feel the SLD pupils have not been recognised; engagement scales work well for PMLD pupils. The interim pre-key stage standards are still recognised as above p8 but below NC which leaves out pupils working between p4 and p8. We need to be able to measure progress not just engagement. We recognise engagement is the pre-factor to learning however once a child is engaged how do we measure the progress then? Are we lowering aspirations by only measuring against engagement? Should the engagement scales be an option instead of statutory? 
• It is a very long process. Pupils working below interim pre-key stage standards will continue to be using the p-scales for another two years. There is confusion around this as some schools such as Chailey Heritage have already moved away from the p-scales. 
• The initial report highlighted the importance of assessing pupils with SEND in all 4 areas of need as outlined by the EHCP. The government report only touches on cognition as an area for assessment by use of the engagement scales but does not directly promote assessment in the 4 areas. 
• This only outlines primary assessment, can we assume it reflects secondary pupils too as many special schools are 2-19. 

 Sources used:

Carpenter, B., Egerton, J., Cockbill, B., Bloom, T., Fotheringham, J., Rawson, H., et al. (2015). Engaging Learners with Complex Learning Difficulties and Disabilities . Abingdon: Routledge .

Department for Education. (2017). Primary school pupil assessment: Rochford Review recommendations . London : Department for Education.

Phillips, S. (2016). Reflections on the Rochford Review & implications for our semi-formal learners with severe and complex needs - One school’s perspective. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from Fountaindale School: http://www.fountaindale.notts.sch.uk/library/documents/Reflections_on_Rochford_SF_%281%29.pdf

Rochford, D. (2016). The Rochford Review: Final Report. London : Standards and testing agency.

The Dales School. (n.d.). Assessment & Progression (MAPP). Retrieved September 17, 2017, from The Dales School: http://www.thedalesschool.org/attachments/MAPP%20case%20study%20e-mail%20PDF.pdf

Ward, H. (2016, October 20). Rochford Review: changes to SEND assessment could lower expectations, warns charity. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from TES: https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/rochford-review-changes-send-assessment-could-lower-expectations

Our Forum Presentation - Curriculum survey results

On Friday 3rd March Hannah and I presented at the Best of British Special Educational Need Forum. Flo asked us to present on the influence Penny Lacey had on the development of our own curriculum model.

Hannah and I were currently following the National Curriculum and trying to make it relevant to our pupils. Yes it can be done, and yes it can be made sensory but it takes a ridiculous amount of hours sitting and racking your brain to make tenuous links and ‘think outside the box’. We approached our SLT about it and were met with concern about such a dramatic change. There were of course concerns about Ofsted, and we completely understood the pressure and importance to do well. There was uncertainty about the moral/ inclusion perspective. Is it right to change the children’s curriculum or do they have an entitlement to receive the same curriculum as their mainstream peers? Another concern was that an informal curriculum model provides less support and structure for teachers as the National Curriculum is a successful model that drives teaching. Hannah and I began to extensively research studies on the impact of the National Curriculum for pupils with PMLD, the meaning and morals of inclusion and other curriculum models used in outstanding schools across the UK.

The first step in our research journey was a quick google search of other curriculum models. The first we found was Castlewood School who devised their curriculum with Penny Lacey. They divide their curriculum into four key areas. These areas link well to EHCPs; cognition, communication, physical and self-help and independence. We loved this model and read through their online documents to further understand how such a model could work in our school. Another school that inspired me was The Children’s Trust school in Surrey, their resources are phenomenal. They now use the IMPACTs model. The IMPACTs model is very similar with the addition of environmental control technology.

We then read wider to find research that evaluated the impact of such models or to find evidence to support a move away from the National Curriculum. We found a journal entry by Imray and Hinchcliffe that highlighted the negative impact the National Curriculum can have for pupils with PMLD and how we should move towards personalised provision.

'Even to this day, there may be a large element of tokenism, with schools ‘pretending’ to teach what they do not actually teach in order to fit the model, and at worst not making a very good job of delivering a watered-down mainstream primary Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) National Curriculum' Imray and Hinchcliffe (2011)

Imray also quotes Ware (1994) 'There is however, a difference in emphasis between the SLD school curricula and the National Curriculum, with the National Curriculum concentrating on what society is thought to need from the individual rather than what the individual needs to cope with society. This emphasis is [a major] source of conflict with good practice in SLD schools where the needs of the individual are seen as paramount. It is important to realise that this is a problem for all special needs education and, indeed, all of education and not just concerned with pupils with PMLD'

' For those working consistently and over a number of years at P8 and below, the National Curriculum does not and cannot offer the level of personalisation of curriculum content that is required to meet individual needs' (Imray and Hinchcliffe, 2011).

When we were given this topic by Flo we decided to put together three surveys. We wanted to have a better understanding of head teacher’s opinions on curriculum models, the opinions of teachers and parents and see how they compare. We shared some of these results during our presentation and discussed the informal curriculum model for PMLD pupils, what it could look like and the positive impact on pupils.



Parents results – 250 responses. The parents who responded to this survey had children with SLD/ PMLD and ASD.        

Teacher survey - 112 responses. Responses are from teachers who work in an SLD/ PMLD setting.

If you teach the National Curriculum what is your experience of its impact? 

(a selection of the responses)


· Needs to be heavily amended to engage our learners - does have a positive impact but only in highly tailored areas.

· Not appropriate or geared towards SEN in anyway. Very rigid doesn't allow for creativity or learning at students own pace.

· It can be a bit hit and miss with regards to the topics we teach. Some are very easy to resource and plan for PMLD and SLD pupils, and some are very difficult. Thinking of activities that are appropriate for each pupil is tricky

· It has a great impact on the children's learning. We use the national curriculum to help us deliver a breadth of experiences and topics.

· I feel it is important to allow students access to a wide range of subjects, rather than limiting their experience just because they have SEND. Has to be adapted for our complex and PMLD. Based on mainstream levels of development keeps pupils engaged know what they need to do next.

· Sometimes doesn't focus on what we actually want (and students and parents) to teach- comes from a model of making the students 'like their mainstream peers' and doesn't always allow to focus on important aspects of the curriculum

· Sometimes vvvvvv tenuous, depends on the concepts etc. and how you make them accessible Nurses for Florence Nightingale Animals for Africa. However what do Tudors or Jesus 'the miracle worker' really have to do with their worlds, needs and next steps, for each individuals learning/communication etc I feel absolutely none.

· Transferring some subjects to our level is difficult at times Negative! I teach in an SLD school and some of the subjects e.g. MFL, History, Geography have little meaning for the children.

· It leads to a very limited timetable and offers no opportunity for the development of communication, physical development and self-help and independence skills. I feel that the children I teach deserve a curriculum designed for them and not be forced to fit one.

· It helps us ensure the students are not repeating the same thing / topic / book / ideas over and over for the whole school career ((hungry caterpillar anyone?) whilst still covering and generalising the actual learning that need to be developed. It is seen to be of second importance to social skills, which I don't believe is the right attitude.

· The National Curriculum does not work for lots of our pupils; it moves far faster than the pupils can manage and is lacking in engaging and interesting topics/skills.

· I feel that we are constantly trying to make tenuous links to prove we are teaching the National Curriculum rather than focusing on what our pupils should really be working on. Yes we can make sensory experiences out of Anglo Saxons as my headteacher repeatedly tells me but this isn't focusing on developing crucial communication, physical or independence skills.

· Does not cover vital skills our children need to learn, the curriculum is not accessible for all pupils, isn't tailored enough for SEN pupils, curriculum is restricting in some areas. For less able students the impact is minimal. I find myself trying to teach the skills that they need loosely tied to an area of the national curriculum. Recently my school has stipulated that we must follow medium term plans and long term plans that are published on our website for the sole purpose of Ofsted. This means that where a few years ago we had the freedom to teach a more topic based approach we now have to deliver lessons on for example, medieval times, parliament and elections and french pets with our most complex of students. Although we can make some lovely experiences - the opportunities for students to develop their specific and individual skills are minimal.

Head teacher – 48 responses. All head teachers of SLD/ PMLD schools

If your school follows an informal/ semi-formal curriculum what do you feel are the main benefits?

• Tailored to meet pupil needs
• Personalisation
• Relevance
• Flexibility
• Focus on communication and individual development
• Bespoke learning opportunities

These are just a selection of the results. If you would like the complete results please let us know.



After discussing curriculum models and our research we discussed 'WHY' we should move towards a more sensory needs based curriculum. We discussed sensory play. As a new teacher of pupils with PMLD we are often told they like sensory play. By searching the internet for ideas you come up with a lot of sensory play ideas. Hannah and I questioned why. We need to make sure there is a reason for everything we do, that we understand it so our TAs can. We will discuss the benefits of sensory play in a future post. 

We also shared this video with the delegates. I received this on the Thursday evening of the Forum. This is our amazing site manager who decided to have a go at being me doing tricky words with my SLD class. He’s not quite got call and response but he’s getting there. I think Keith Park needs to give us a visit!

He was just missing my new wig and glasses! I have also since added dollar rings! My class couldn't wait for our tricky words session because the loudest pupil got to be the rapper! 

Imray, P., & Hinchcliffe, V. (2012). Not fit for purpose: a call for separate and distinct pedagogies as part of a national framework for those with severe and profound learning difficulties. Support for Learning , 150-157.