Support Specialist- Mental Health, SEND and More

26/08/2026

I have been reading the newly published Five to Twelve: Year 1 report. In Year 1, the researchers collected information from families and explored children's health, wellbeing, home environments, school experiences, attainment and cognitive development. The cohort was aged 5–6. Cognitive assessments were included. The findings show clear associations between these cognitive measures and children's socioeconomic circumstances. Verbal skills were strongly linked to parental education and socioeconomic status, with similar patterns found for non-verbal reasoning and working memory.
These are important findings. But they also raise a much bigger question about how we position children.
The report shows that inequalities are already visible at the beginning of primary school. Children eligible for Free School Meals, children with SEN, those from lower-income households and those with less well-educated parents were more likely to experience disadvantage across a range of measures. For example, 30% of children eligible for Free School Meals had Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores suggesting socio-emotional difficulties, compared with 10% of children who were not eligible. For children with SEN, the figure was 44%, compared with 10% of children without SEN.
But what happens to the child behind the category?
A child becomes positioned within datasets as having SEN, being eligible for Free School Meals, coming from a lower-income household, having parents with a particular level of education, or achieving a particular score on a cognitive assessment.
These measures can tell us something important about patterns of inequality.
But they cannot necessarily tell us what it is like to be that child.
That distinction matters.
If we look at children only through the categories and measures we construct around them, we risk understanding the child's position without fully understanding the child's experience of that position.
A socioeconomic category tells us something about the circumstances surrounding a child.
A cognitive score tells us something about performance on a particular measure.
An SEN classification tells us something about how a child has been identified within the education system.
But none of these, on their own, can tell us:
What is it like to be this child?
And that, for me, is where children's voice becomes so important.
The Five to Twelve study is longitudinal, so it can show how these inequalities and outcomes develop as children move through primary school.
But alongside the longitudinal data, I would argue that we also need to remain attentive to children's lived experiences.
Because children are not simply data points, categories or predicted outcomes. The most important question is therefore not only:
What does the data tell us about children?
But what might children tell us about the data?
And are we measuring children's lives, or are we really listening to them?

15/07/2026

One of my PhD students is collecting data for their doctoral research and is seeking participants. Your support by sharing this post with your networks would be greatly appreciated.

Every participant and every share helps to increase the reach of the study and contributes to the research.

If you meet the participation criteria, we'd love to hear from you. If not, please consider sharing this post with friends, colleagues, and relevant communities who may be interested.

Thank you for supporting doctoral research and helping to generate evidence that can make a meaningful difference.

23/06/2026

The publication of the Excellence in Reception Teaching Content Framework is a positive step towards recognising the specialist knowledge and skills required to teach our youngest children.

What stands out is the emphasis on child development. Understanding how children develop should be a fundamental part of teacher training, not simply understanding how to teach. Reception teachers require knowledge of children's development from birth onwards, as children's experiences and opportunities before they arrive at school shape their learning, behaviour, communication, physical development, and wellbeing.

If aspects of development are missed or not fully supported in the early years, this can have ongoing implications throughout a child's educational journey. As Dr Sally Goddard Blythe highlights in *Movement is a Child's First Language*, early movement experiences are closely connected to later learning, development, and readiness for school. This showcases that education must be viewed holistically, recognising the interconnected nature of physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development.

Whilst this framework focuses on Reception, it encourages thinking beyond the classroom and beyond individual curriculum areas. It highlights the importance of seeing the whole child and understanding the foundations upon which learning is built, a fact that those working across the early years sector have long recognised.

The question now is where this renewed focus will take schools, educational settings, teacher training programmes, and professional development. Could this be an opportunity to strengthen understanding of child development across the education system and create more connected, developmentally informed approaches to teaching and learning?

I look forward to seeing how this framework influences practice and supports stronger outcomes for children, families, and educators.

09/05/2026

https://www.ovid.com/journals/ejph/fulltext/10.1093/eurpub/ckag040~outdoor-play-in-europe-terminology-and-state-of-research

Outdoor play (OP) is strongly associated with human health, development, and wellbeing, yet modern lifestyles and changing environments increasingly...

30/03/2026

Screen Time: New Advice… or the Same Message?

The latest guidance from the UK Department for Education on screen time for young children is making headlines—but the message itself isn’t new.

For years (since TVs, computers, and gaming first entered our homes), the advice has been the same: balance is key.

What has changed is access.
Children today often have multiple devices—and sometimes their own—meaning screen time is more constant and less shared.

Why are people concerned?

Too much screen time can impact:
Sleep
Attention
Social interaction
Physical activity
Opportunities for hands-on play

There are also increasing concerns from opticians about children’s eyesight and prolonged screen use.

But it’s not the same for every child…

I recently visited a small town where children were outside playing, before school, after school, and at weekends. Bikes, parks, fresh air.

It was lovely to see, but not every child has that access.

Busy roads, fewer safe spaces, and changes in how communities are set up all play a part.

So what’s the answer?

It’s not about removing screens.
It’s about asking: what is screen time replacing?

Children need:
Movement
Social connection
Hands-on, real-world play
Time to explore and be active

A gentle reminder
Small changes can make a big difference:
Screen-free times (like before bed)
Playing together offline
Getting outside when possible
Keeping screens as part of life—not the whole of it

Especially for our children with SEND, balance and meaningful experiences really matter.

23/03/2026

There’s a powerful article in The Conversation https://theconversation.com/four-year-olds-dont-need-to-sit-still-to-be-school-ready-261812 about four-year-olds and the idea of being “school ready”. It raises a question many of us in early years have been asking for a long time…

Why are we still expecting young children to sit still in order to learn?

We know from both research and practice that this isn’t beneficial for the development of young children. At four, children are still building self-regulation, attention, and emotional understanding. The issue isn’t that they can’t sit still; it’s that sustained stillness is not developmentally appropriate or meaningful for learning at this age.
And yet, the narrative persists.
Recent discussions around “school readiness” continue to focus on children arriving at school able to sit, listen, and conform, with claims that many children are “not ready” because they can’t sit still. But this framing is misplaced.

The problem isn’t the children..

In many other countries, early education systems are built around play, movement, exploration, and relationships, and take children through age 7. These systems don’t rush children into formal learning, and, importantly, they see strong outcomes not just academically but also in wellbeing, confidence, and long-term development.

We don’t need to copy another country’s system wholesale; contexts matter. But we do have decades of evidence showing that play-based, developmentally informed approaches work.

So why are we still debating this?
Why are we still leaning into outdated expectations of stillness, compliance, and “readiness”, when we know that young children learn through doing, moving, exploring, and connecting?

And perhaps most importantly…

What would it look like if we designed schools that were ready for children, rather than expecting children to be ready for school?

Because “school readiness” shouldn’t be about sitting still.

It should be about feeling safe, curious, connected, and ready to engage with the world.
And that’s worth advocating for.

Children need physical play to develop their strength, coordination, and motor skills.

20/02/2026

https://www.devonmind.com/find-help/wellbeing-activities/peri-plodders

Home » Find Help » Wellbeing Activities » Peri PloddersPeri PloddersMonthly walking support group Peri Plodders is a support group with a difference, we aim to introduce the benefits of walking for women who are experiencing symptoms of perimenopause and beyond. Perimenopause is a time of hormon...

15/02/2026

I’ve recently been reading Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children by Hannah Barnes.

The book examines what happened within the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Gender Identity Development Service, and it makes for difficult but important reading.

It is not simply the institutional failings described, but the deeper and more uncomfortable issue running throughout: once again, children and young people appear to have been let down by the very systems designed to support and protect them.

The themes of the book highlight concerns about clinical uncertainty, inadequate training, limited supervision, and professionals working in systems that were overwhelmed and underprepared. When services such as the National Health Service and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services are under-resourced or insufficiently trained for complex and sensitive areas of practice, it is children who feel the impact most sharply.

As adults and as professionals, we have a responsibility to ensure that our practice is evidence-informed, reflective, and centred on the long-term well-being of children and young people. That means investing properly in training, supervision, ethical debate, and multi-disciplinary collaboration. It means being honest about uncertainty rather than rushing toward simplified pathways. And it means truly listening.

This book does not offer easy answers. But it does raise important questions about safeguarding, professional accountability, and whether our systems are equipped to hold the complexity of children’s lives.

If we are serious about child-centred practice, we must also be serious about strengthening the systems around them.

26/01/2026

I’m really angry about the framing in this article and Mr Milburn’s comments.

Let’s be absolutely clear: anxiety disorders and depression are not “normal” in the way this piece implies. Yes, they may be common, but common does not mean trivial, harmless, or something people can simply push through without support. This kind of language minimises very real, often disabling mental health conditions and the lived experiences of those who have them.

There are also some serious factual gaps here.

Children with SEND who receive DLA do not “automatically” move onto PIP. There is a transition assessment between DLA and PIP, and many young people do not qualify following this process, despite having ongoing needs. The idea that this is some kind of guaranteed conveyor belt into adult benefits shows a lack of understanding of how the system actually works.

It’s also deeply misleading to imply that PIP is about keeping people out of work. Many people who receive PIP are in work or training. PIP exists precisely to support participation, helping people get to work, manage daily living, access transport, and function in a world that is not designed for them.

What’s most frustrating is that these comments feel like they come from someone who has neither done the research nor lived in the reality of supporting people with mental health conditions, nor having one themselves. Policy soundbites that ignore lived experience do real harm.

If we genuinely care about young people’s futures, the answer is not minimising mental health conditions or blaming individuals; it’s proper support, accessible workplaces, early intervention, and systems that understand disability rather than dismiss it.

People are not being “written off”.
They are being worn down by barriers.

Young people with ‘normal’ mental health conditions ‘should be in work’

16/01/2026

Spring Term SEND Support – Advocacy, Rights & Walking Alongside You 🌱

As the spring term begins, many SEND individuals, parents, and carers are once again navigating systems that remain complex, under-resourced, and difficult to access.

My work is rooted in neurodiversity-affirming practice, disability rights, and the belief that people should not have to fight endlessly for support they are entitled to.

Support I Offer

I provide 1:1 support, including:
• Advice and guidance around SEND systems and rights
• A listening space, without judgement or pressure
• Signposting to services and community support
• Advocacy, including attending meetings (TAM / TAC / TAF)
• Support with referrals
• Support with benefit forms:
– PIP
– DLA
– Attendance Allowance
• Access to Work applications and ongoing Access to Work support
• Meeting preparation, follow-ups, and written summaries

Why Advocacy Matters

SEND individuals and families are too often expected to:
• repeatedly evidence need
• navigate inaccessible systems independently
• carry emotional labour for services that don’t listen

This is a systemic issue, not an individual failure.
Until systems improve, advocacy, solidarity, and shared knowledge matter.

If you think I might be able to support you, or you’re not sure where to start you’re welcome to message me for a conversation 💬
Please share if this might help someone else.