Common Mis(Interventions)

Hey

The future is looking good, there are signs. But first…

Big idea 🍉

Supporting students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) is a vital and growing challenge for schools. But it’s not straightforward. Learning is complex, marketing claims are confident, and the evidence is often hard to access. As a result, we can sometimes end up adopting approaches which are less effective than we initially think.

For some, this may well be uncomfortable reading. As a profession, many of us have put time, effort and belief into these things, and lots will have seen students who looked like they were getting something from it. However, it’s essential that we temper our intuition with evidence, because ultimately: our most vulnerable students deserve it.

This new paper (released today) is an attempt to raise the visibility of the best available evidence around several commonly used SEN interventions. For each, we provide an overview of what the research says, offer a more informed approach, and provide a suite of rigorous links to help you get started.

As ever, let me know what you think. If you have pushes or suggestions for how this paper could be better, just hit reply.

And if you or your colleagues find Evidence Snacks useful, please do consider asking your organisation to subscribe. It’s a small gesture at your end but has a big impact at mine:

→ Subscribe to Snacks PRO

Little updates 🥕

• Article on motor skills → suggests fine motor skills are more strongly linked to academic & cognitive outcomes than gross motor skills.

• Study on removing grades → finds few meaningful differences in attainment, wellbeing, motivation, or classroom climate in real-world settings.

• Paper on science engagement → shows that engagement may decline with age, but can be supported through interesting & clear teaching.

• Overview of writing pedagogy → explores how explicit teaching, feedback & practice improve learning, unlike unsupported writing tasks.