A recent discussion on the Forum dealt with the way in which the Covid‐19 pandemic was impacting on SENCos' roles and functions in the pre‐school phase. At the statutory level, these roles and functions are set out in the relevant section of the 2015 version of the Code of Practice. The overall aim of early provision is to prepare children to achieve a sound foundation in learning and behaviour, from which they can make a crucially effective transition to the statutory primary phase. The Forum discussion considered that SENCos were to be ‘agents of change’ to ensure that provision was responsive to the special educational needs and disabilities (SENDs) of individual children and the concerns of their parents/carers. Forum members had been alerted to a recently published report on early years provision (DfE & National Centre for Social Research, 2020), carried out just before the impact of the pandemic started in January and February 2020. At a systemic level, the report set out the main forms of pre‐school provision – in early years classes in primary schools; in independent settings; and through child minders. Among the study's sample of providers, 80% of pre‐school classes had at least one child registered as having SENDs, 83% among independent settings, and 16% among child minders. Providers had called on various streams of central Government funding for pre‐school children with SENDs and also for those from areas of disadvantage. The report mentions that whether or not those responsible for settings applied for funding tended to depend on their having the time and perseverance to cope with the bureaucracy of the conditions for application and eligibility. Funding was mainly used to supplement staffing and for further professional development. Some local authorities also appointed SENCos to support provision in localities in their areas, and so formed part of the local authorities' SEND ‘offer’ specified in the Code.

Messages to the Forum indicated that SENCos' scope for influencing support for children and their parents/carers depended on the extent to which they were part of a setting's organisational system. Successive Codes of Practice have emphasised that SENCos should be allocated senior roles in schools' and settings' management so that they can take part in decisions about wider systemic policies for meeting children's needs. However, SENCos have long reported that observance of this stipulation has varied widely, reflecting the educational values of those managing the settings. Some groups of settings have collaborated in jointly funding and appointing a SENCo to provide support for children with SENDs. This enabled the settings to have access to additionally designated specialist support. Such an arrangement was recognised as acceptable in the 2015 Code, subject to regular review. The potential downside of sharing SENCos was that they might not be regarded as sufficiently ‘embedded’ in the staffing, and thus might not become familiar with the particular ways in which support was offered.

Forum members also mentioned the support that SENCos themselves receive through their links with specialist SEND staff, both from local authorities' education and social services and from the National Health Service. SENCos act as an onward referral link to this level of expertise. This is intended to offer both direct preventative intervention for individual children, and indirect preventative consultation and contributions to further professional development. One of the most significant roles of specialist staff is represented by their reports for – or participation in – decision‐making panels dealing with the allocation of education, health and care plans (EHCPs) for children identified as having SENDs. It has been well documented that, even before the onset of the pandemic, the austerity regime had led to a reduction in staffing levels in these specialist services.

The above systemic considerations form the context in which the impact of the pandemic took place. The measures to counter the risk of infection in the first phase of the pandemic – and now in the second phase – have determined how educational provision has had to be reconfigured. Pre‐school settings have paralleled other educational provision, both within settings and in outreach. Within settings, the variability of children's attendance has been influenced by their health and their parents' infection concerns. Grouping of children has separated them into socially isolated ‘bubbles’. Staff have had to take account of individuals' state of health, as well as their family circumstances, such as responsibility for child care and their employment prospects. These considerations have swamped any efforts to maintain continuity of settings' curriculum plans as well as maintaining a ‘graduated approach’ to responding to children's learning needs. The substitution of outreach schemes for children has had to be tailored according to the available technology both in settings and in children's home environments. The Forum discussion showed that the effect of these considerations reflected the flexibility of settings' prevailing approaches to learning and teaching. As far as children with SENDs are concerned, they have contributed to enhancing this flexibility and to accommodating, for example, parents'/carers' worries that they would not be able to meet the demands of home learning.

Forum members also referred to parents'/carers' anxieties about meeting the various demands of successive lockdown regulations. Predominantly parents were concerned about the risk of infection and the requirements about social isolation. These concerns related to both their individual children's health, and to the risks to parents'/carers' own employment and implications for financial coping. Forum members reported that parents/carers were apprehensive about visiting settings to evaluate the precautions that were in place. Settings had tried to take account of these concerns by devising various communication measures that addressed the lockdown regulations as they were announced. Many settings had already been maintaining contact with parents/carers through SENCos' home visits where this was called for by the needs of children, but this had then to be judged in the light of the infection risks.

This summary of the recent discussion on the SENCo‐Forum has illustrated some of the challenges facing SENCos serving the pre‐school phase of education in the circumstances of the pandemic. The scale of the challenge is illustrated by members' use of vocabulary such as ‘unprecedented’ and ‘uncharted territory’ in referring to the situations with which they are having to cope. However, as is now widely acknowledged, the present situation has also prompted questions about some of the assumptions on which the current educational system is based, and hopefully this will engender an understanding of directions for change.

最近在论坛上进行的讨论涉及Covid-19大流行在学前阶段对SENCos的角色和功能产生影响的方式。在法定一级，这些角色和功能在《 2015年版操作规范》的相关章节中进行了规定。尽早提供的总体目的是为儿童做好准备，使其在学习和行为上建立良好的基础，从中他们可以至关重要地有效地过渡到法定初等阶段。论坛的讨论认为，特殊教育服务将成为“变革的推动者”，以确保提供的服务能够满足个别儿童的特殊教育需求和残疾（SEND）及其父母/照护者的关注。提醒论坛成员注意最近发布的有关早期准备金的报告（DfE＆2020年）是在2020年1月和2020年2月大流行开始之前进行的。该报告从系统的角度列出了学前班的主要形式-小学的早期班级；在独立的环境中；并通过儿童看护人。在该研究的提供者样本中，80％的学龄前班中至少有一个孩子注册了SEND，在独立环境中为83％，在儿童保育者中为16％。提供者呼吁中央政府提供各种形式的资金，用于有SENDs的学龄前儿童以及弱势地区的学龄前儿童。报告提到，负责申请资助的机构是否倾向于往往取决于他们是否有时间和毅力来应对申请条件和资格的官僚主义。资金主要用于补充人员和进一步的职业发展。一些地方当局还任命了SENCo，以支持其所在地区的地方提供食物，因此构成了《守则》中指定的地方当局的SEND“要约”的一部分。

给论坛的消息表明，SENCos影响儿童及其父母/照护者支持的范围取决于他们在场所组织系统中的参与程度。接连的《实践准则》强调，应在学校和场所的管理中指派有特殊教育意义的儿童担任高级职务，以便他们可以参与有关满足儿童需求的更广泛的系统性政策的决策。但是，SENCos长期以来一直报告说，遵守该规定的情况千差万别，反映出管理场所的人们的教育价值。一些团体已经合作共同资助和任命了SENCo，以为患有SEND的儿童提供支持。这使设置可以访问其他指定的专家支持。这种安排在《 2015年规则》中被认为是可以接受的，但需要定期进行审查。共享SENCos的潜在弊端是，他们可能没有被视为充分“嵌入”了人员编制，因此可能不熟悉提供支持的特定方式。

论坛成员还提到了SENCos自身通过与SEND专业人员的联系而获得的支持，这些支持既来自地方当局的教育和社会服务，也来自国家卫生服务。SENCos充当了此专业水平的转介链接。这旨在为个别儿童提供直接的预防干预，以及间接的预防咨询和为进一步的专业发展做出贡献。专家工作人员最重要的作用之一是他们为决策小组的报告（或参与决策小组）的报告，这些小组负责处理被确定为患有SEND的儿童的教育，保健和护理计划（EHCP）的分配。有据可查的是，即使在大流行开始之前，

上述系统性考虑构成了大流行影响发生的背景。在大流行的第一阶段（现在是第二阶段）应对感染风险的措施已确定如何重新配置​​教育设施。学前环境在环境内和外展方面都与其他教育规定相提并论。在环境中，儿童出勤的可变性受到其健康和父母感染问题的影响。孩子们的分组将他们分为社会上孤立的“泡泡”。工作人员必须考虑个人的健康状况以及他们的家庭状况，例如照顾孩子的责任和他们的就业前景。这些考虑淹没了为保持环境课程计划的连续性以及为满足儿童学习需求而采取的“渐进式方法”的任何努力。必须根据环境和儿童家庭环境中的可用技术量身定制针对儿童的外展计划替代方案。论坛的讨论表明，这些考虑因素的影响反映了环境流行的学与教方法的灵活性。就患有SENDs的儿童而言，他们为增强这种灵活性做出了贡献，并为例如父母/照顾者担心他们将无法满足家庭学习的需求做出了贡献。的学习需求。必须根据环境和儿童家庭环境中的可用技术量身定制针对儿童的外展计划替代方案。论坛的讨论表明，这些考虑因素的影响反映了环境流行的学与教方法的灵活性。就患有SENDs的儿童而言，他们为增强这种灵活性做出了贡献，并为例如父母/照顾者担心他们将无法满足家庭学习的需求做出了贡献。的学习需求。必须根据环境和儿童家庭环境中的可用技术量身定制针对儿童的外展计划替代方案。论坛的讨论表明，这些考虑因素的影响反映了环境流行的学与教方法的灵活性。就患有SENDs的儿童而言，他们为增强这种灵活性做出了贡献，并为例如父母/照顾者担心他们将无法满足家庭学习的需求做出了贡献。论坛的讨论表明，这些考虑因素的影响反映了环境流行的学与教方法的灵活性。就患有SENDs的儿童而言，他们为增强这种灵活性做出了贡献，并为例如父母/照顾者担心他们将无法满足家庭学习的需求做出了贡献。论坛的讨论表明，这些考虑因素的影响反映了环境流行的学与教方法的灵活性。就患有SENDs的儿童而言，他们为增强这种灵活性做出了贡献，并为例如父母/照顾者担心他们将无法满足家庭学习的需求做出了贡献。

论坛成员还提到了父母/照料者对满足连续锁定规定的各种要求的焦虑。父母主要担心感染的风险和对社会隔离的要求。这些担忧既关系到其子女的健康，也关系到父母/照料者自己的就业风险以及对财务应对的影响。论坛成员报告说，父母/看护人担心参观环境以评估已采取的预防措施。设置试图通过设计解决宣布的锁定规则的各种通信措施来考虑这些问题。许多机构已经通过SENCos与父母/看护人保持联系。

这份关于SENCo论坛的最新讨论的摘要说明了在大流行情况下，SENCo为学前教育阶段所服务的SENCo所面临的一些挑战。挑战的规模体现在成员使用“前所未有的”和“未知领域”之类的词汇来指代他们必须应对的情况。但是，正如现在已被广泛承认的那样，目前的状况也引发了对当前教育体系所基于的某些假设的质疑，并希望这将有助于对变革方向的理解。