SEND-inclusive assessment: Three-tier differentiation workflow

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

常見問題

What's the difference between differentiation and reasonable adjustments?

Differentiation is good teaching for all pupils (e.g., varied task complexity). Reasonable adjustments are specific adaptations for SEND pupils as required by the Equality Act 2010 (e.g., extra time, reader support).

How do I maintain high expectations while differentiating?

Focus on reducing barriers to access (e.g., simpler language, visual supports) while keeping the cognitive demand high. Don't lower the learning objective—change how pupils demonstrate understanding.

Can Learnly generate SEND-friendly assessments?

Yes—Learnly's AI creates three-tier assessments from a single source, with scaffolding, visual supports, and reduced cognitive load while maintaining alignment to the same learning objectives.