Oh dear I'm at it again. Sorry to Tom Bennett as I have previously reacted to his articles. https://community.tes.com/threads/treat-the-need-not-the-label.757382/ The reason I feel compelled to respond however is because Bennett has the voice of government and consequently policy. I feel obliged to pick up on Tom's arguments because I don't want government policy to give the message to teachers that nothing should be done to accommodate students with learning differences. What is it this time? Tom reacted to this poster: I'm not keen on the analogy either but one of his comments I fundamentally disagree with. Bennett wrote this: "If a student finds focussing hard, unless they have a diagnosed SEN, they usually primarily need help to practise the habit of focussing" It is the claim that only when a particular SEND has been identified then it is OK to differentiate. But we don't need the label to begin adjusting our teaching. To put this in context. I once supported a family whose son was being sent to the PRU unit against their wishes. All behaviours pointed to autism and he was going through the core diagnostic team to confirm this. The head however refused to make any adjustments until the label was official. Even telling me he'd welcome staff training from me once the diagnosis had come through. There are many students showing traits of a SEN and the diagnosis should not be the starting point to allow a student success in school. Teaching is responsive and with knowledge of SEND, small adjustments can make a huge difference. If teachers won't do this until an SEN is identified, we are waiting for our SEND learners to fail. I've written about behaviour strategies before on this. https://community.tes.com/threads/behaviour-traits-in-send-a-systematic-approach.756180/ The poster is based on universal design for learning (UDL). To be clear, I think UDL is tricky to implement in mainstream classes of 30 plus. However the spirit of UDL is doable - a recognition that within the homogeneity of a classroom, learners have differences is vital. Just by having this understanding means the student feels included and nothing much may need to be changed. More often however, a reflection by a teacher into how a student who can't read as an example, can access the curriculum, will allow that student to float rather than sink. If a student fidgets she needs strategies to concentrate but the argument that if a child struggles with writing they need to do it more might be flawed. At what cost? And why, if speech recognition does the job? More practice in a student's difficulties appears to make sense doesn't it? But for a learner with dyslexia, they may need to be in a classroom with assistive technology alongside 1:1 phonic sessions which don't require them to miss lessons. Such spiky profiles, are often misunderstood with the promise of 'if you practise more and work hard you'll get there.' Being enabled to flourish in a subject despite not being able to do the secondary skill (in this case literacy) is possible albeit controversial. It's central to the debate around universal design and I invite Tom Bennet to discuss this with me. We can then inform teachers responsibly without creating the myth that responsive teaching requires an identified SEND but perhaps of equal importance, that differentiation does not require 30 different worksheets.