Inclusion and the tension of multiple empathies

By Dr Anita Devi

Let’s, start this month’s blog with a story. Imagine the following scenario:

Sam has learning needs.  These are by and large undiagnosed with a definitive ‘label’ because his needs have changed over time i.e., they are developmental. As Sam grows, some needs increase and others change, including some no longer being a factor, in terms of impacting his learning. The school has continued to assess, put provision in place, review and meet his needs.  They have also sought external advice.  The SEND Advisory Teacher and the Educational Psychologist are keen to come in and assess Sam, but they have no capacity to do so.  The school has no budget to go private.

The headteacher and SENCO have written to the central team of their Multi-Academy Trust for support, as well as the local authority.  However, nothing has been forthcoming due to other children also awaiting further support.  Parents have approached the local doctor, who in turn has made a referral to the Paediatrician at the hospital.  However, waiting lists have meant this may not happen for a few months.

Does this sound familiar?

So, here’s my question, in this scenario, who do you empathise with?

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

• I empathise with Sam and how he has informed us about how he finds learning in the classroom.  My empathy here is not based on assumptions, but his direct communicated experience.
• I empathise with parents, who are doing everything in their agency to ensure Sam is supported. They report their frustration about how they feel with the waiting and being passed from person to person and service to service.  Sam’s needs changing over time is both positive and challenging.  At times, it is also confusing.
• I empathise with the school leaders and staff, who have continually employed ‘best endeavours’ and in seeking external support recognise their in-house limitations.  Nonetheless, they persevere in seeking out new in-house support solutions.
• I empathise with the external specialists who have reduced teams and increased workloads.  Their professional integrity remains to do the best by children, young people and their families across the geographical area they cover.
• I empathise with practitioners in the Multi-Academy Trust and local authority, who are in a situation of limited resources forcing prioritisation, when their professional practice is to support all children and young people equally and with equity.
• I empathise with health professionals, who need specialist input from their colleagues, but are restricted by referral systems and waiting lists, within a broader system.

In this one scenario, I can empathise with 7 different people groups. And so, a further question arises, how do we move forward?  The empathies I experience are different; some ethical, some emotional and some logical. Although not directly involved, I am experiencing conflict, within a conflict situation.

Conflict: a dispute or disagreement of perception

In reality, this is not a conflict of people groups, but prioritisation of limited resources. The very nature of the world, there will always be a shortage of resources and yet there is enough.  The challenge is distribution.

My aim here is not to paint a picture of ‘doom and gloom’, but to raise awareness of the deeper challenges we now are now experiencing as a sector.  The SEND system is a distribution of resources issue.  In England, it is now 10 years since the Children & Families Act 2014 was enacted. Yet we are no way close to the aspirations set out by the original reforms in 2011, which were about a ‘better’ way to distribute resources.

As a SEND Specialist and strategist my immediate response would be we need to build capacity at multiple levels.  However, I know this is going to take time and, in the meantime, Sam continues to experience difficulties. The solution isn’t also just about more resourcing, although that would help.  Its’ about doing things differently and looking at data differently perhaps.  The challenge here being people move on and data becomes out-dated, within the fast economy which we find ourselves.

Awhile back when I worked for the local authority as a SEND Advisory Teacher, we saw a rise in referrals to the Physiotherapist.  Their waiting list was at least a 6-month wait.  This meant some of the most acute cases were challenged by capacity.  As a team, we created a package for high incidence / low levels needs.  The package included both physical resources and training for each setting in the local authority. We rolled out the training over 3 months (less than the waiting list time).  As a result, schools had greater knowledge and capacity to respond in a timely manner to a number of needs, which left the specialists to focus on low incidence / high level needs.

In recent years, the level of incidence has increased, due to many factors and therefore I am not stating this is not the only way forward.  However, it should hopefully help us to collectively think outside the box, for different and alternative solutions. I do believe, it is only in our united efforts can we reconcile the tension of multiple empathies.

Let me leave you with two final thoughts (small step solutions):

1. This month of this year has an extra day (29^th February 2024).  That’s an extra day to be more inclusive! The 365 SEND Project is absolutely adamant – everyday matters and every day should be an investment in inclusion! Find out more www.365send.uk
2. In the UK, you have until 29^th February 2024 (midnight) to audit your school, college or alternative provision setting https://sis-catalyst.webflow.io/campaigns/national-send-audit This is a different approach to data collection and driving local change.

Both adopt a bottom-up-approach to driving change. Is your preference top-down or bottom-up?