I have a couple of concerns about this particular aspect of our current approach to inclusion in education. Firstly, it forces a dichotomy between SEND and non-SEND learners that I think simply does not exist. The abilities and needs of our students exist on a vast and always evolving matrix of spikes and troughs, clusters and gaps, that cannot be usefully polarised or made linear in a way that makes any sense to me. Of course, I know there are students who have needs that are met through additional and different to our standard offer, but that distinction is made on the limitations of our offer, not – as we behave like it is – the ‘deviation from norm’ of the child. This is a medical model approach if ever I’ve seen it, but that is a whole other rant for a whole other time. Ultimately, the line between SEND and non-SEND depends on the scope of the school’s universal offer as much as it does on the needs of the children and, at very least, it is a concept with a degree of relativity at its borders. And yes, some students needs are unique within that school and needs are met through provision that is bespoke. This does nothing to sway my assertions. We know that this is going to be the case and could design our systems to incorporate high quality flexibility as the norm if we wanted to.
My second concern is this: as SENCOs, senior leaders, teachers and TAs, we need to recognise the weight of the decisions we are making about our students. As education professionals, we make decisions about whether or not a student is on the SEND register, in this intervention or on that alternative pathway… as education professions we do that. Not doctors or psychologists. Not future tellers or psychics. We make decisions that may change the course of a child’s life on our limited knowledge of this flawed and arbitrary notion of SEND.
inco14 
[…] The current approach is based on the fairly arbitrary notion of there being distinct SEND and non-SE… […]