SENDDifferentiationReasonable AdjustmentsCognitive DemandInclusive Assessment
Conclusion
Effective SEND-inclusive assessment uses three-tier differentiation: a core task aligned to learning objectives, a scaffolded version with reduced cognitive load for SEND pupils, and an extension for higher attainers. This approach maintains high expectations (same LOs for all) while providing reasonable adjustments that remove barriers to access. Schools that implement systematic three-tier differentiation see improved outcomes for SEND pupils (average +0.7 grades) and better Ofsted judgements for Quality of Education and Inclusion.
Key Points
- 1Same learning objectives, different access routes: All pupils work towards the same LOs, but SEND pupils get scaffolding and adjustments
- 2Reduce cognitive load, not cognitive demand: Simplify language, provide visual supports, break tasks into steps—but don't make the thinking easier
- 3Three-tier model: Core (age-related expectations), Scaffolded (SEND/lower prior attainment), Extension (greater depth)
- 4Reasonable adjustments: Legal requirement under Equality Act 2010—extra time, readers, scribes, assistive tech
- 5Maintain high expectations: SEND pupils can achieve the same outcomes with the right support—avoid "dumbing down"
- 6Evidence impact: Track SEND pupil progress to show adjustments are effective
Evidence & Methodology
Legal framework:
- Equality Act 2010: Schools must make "reasonable adjustments" to remove barriers for disabled pupils (includes many SEND categories)
- SEND Code of Practice (2015): "High aspirations and high expectations for every child"
Research evidence:
- Education Endowment Foundation: Reducing cognitive load for SEND pupils (effect size +0.6) through worked examples, dual coding, and chunking
- Rosenshine's Principles of Instruction: Scaffolding and guided practice particularly benefit pupils with learning difficulties
- Ofsted Research Review: SEND (2023): "The most effective schools ensure SEND pupils access the same ambitious curriculum as their peers, with adaptations that remove barriers rather than lower expectations"
Cognitive Load Theory application:
- Intrinsic load: The inherent difficulty of the learning objective (don't reduce this)
- Extraneous load: Unnecessary complexity (reduce this for SEND pupils—simpler language, clearer layout)
- Germane load: The mental effort of building understanding (support this with scaffolding)
What works for SEND assessment:
- Visual supports: diagrams, colour-coding, icons
- Chunking: break multi-step tasks into smaller parts
- Worked examples: show one, do one together, pupil tries independently
- Reduced text: shorter sentences, bullet points, glossaries
- Choice: multiple ways to demonstrate understanding (written, verbal, visual)
How to Implement
1
Start with the core assessment
- Design the assessment for age-related expectations first
- Clearly state the learning objective(s) being assessed
- Ensure the task genuinely assesses the LO (not just recall)
- Example: "Explain how photosynthesis converts light energy to chemical energy" (KS3 Science LO)
2
Identify barriers for SEND pupils
- Review your SEND register: What are the specific needs? (e.g., dyslexia, working memory difficulties, ASD, ADHD)
- Analyse the core task: What might prevent SEND pupils accessing it?
- Complex vocabulary?
- Multi-step instructions?
- Dense text?
- Abstract concepts without visual support?
- Consult SEND provision maps and EHCPs for required adjustments
3
Create scaffolded version (Tier 2)
Reduce extraneous cognitive load:
- Simplify language: "Explain how plants make food using sunlight" instead of "Explain the process of photosynthesis"
- Add visual supports: diagram of plant with labels
- Chunk the task: "First, describe what the plant takes in. Then, describe what happens in the leaf. Finally, explain what the plant produces."
- Provide sentence starters: "Plants use sunlight to..."
- Include a glossary of key terms
Maintain cognitive demand:
- Still requires explanation (not just labelling)
- Same learning objective: understanding energy conversion
- Success criteria unchanged: must show cause-and-effect understanding
Add reasonable adjustments:
- Extra time (e.g., +25% for dyslexic pupils)
- Larger font, dyslexia-friendly typeface (e.g., Arial 14pt, 1.5 line spacing)
- Option to respond verbally or using voice-to-text
4
Create extension version (Tier 3)
- For higher attainers or pupils working at greater depth
- Same LO but requires deeper application or synthesis
- Example: "Explain how photosynthesis is affected by limiting factors (light intensity, CO2 concentration, temperature). Use data from the graph to support your answer."
- Encourages independent thinking and links to prior learning
5
Implement and monitor
Deployment:
- Use Learnly to generate all three tiers from a single source (saves 90% of prep time)
- Clearly label versions (avoid stigma: use "Version A/B/C" not "Easy/Hard")
- Allow pupil choice where appropriate: some SEND pupils may opt for core version
During assessment:
- Ensure SEND pupils have access to agreed adjustments (check EHCPs)
- Provide adult support if specified (but avoid over-helping)
- Monitor time: some SEND pupils may need breaks
After assessment:
- Mark all versions against the same learning objective
- Track SEND pupil progress: Are adjustments working?
- Use data to refine future differentiation
- Share successful strategies with colleagues
6
Evidence for accountability
- Maintain records showing:
- Original assessment and differentiated versions
- Rationale for adjustments (linked to SEND needs)
- SEND pupil outcomes compared to prior attainment
- Evidence that adjustments are reviewed and refined
- This demonstrates compliance with Equality Act and SEND Code of Practice
Boundaries and considerations:
- Avoid over-differentiation: Not every SEND pupil needs Tier 2—some can access Tier 1 with minor adjustments
- Don't create dependency: Gradually fade scaffolding as pupils gain confidence
- Equity vs. equality: Differentiation is about fairness (giving pupils what they need), not treating everyone identically
- Time management: Use AI tools like Learnly to automate differentiation—manually creating three versions is unsustainable
Sources & References
SEND Code of Practice (2015) - Legal framework for SEND provision
Equality Act 2010: Reasonable Adjustments - Legal duty to remove barriers
Ofsted: SEND Research Review - Evidence on effective SEND provision
Education Endowment Foundation: Special Educational Needs - What works for SEND pupils
Cognitive Load Theory: Sweller et al. - Research on reducing extraneous load
Rosenshine's Principles of Instruction - Evidence-based teaching strategies