Andrew Young
Dropping the kerb: why ‘teaching to the top’ falls short
The philosophical view of ‘teaching to the top’ sounds ambitious, but in practice, it often leaves the majority behind and blocks too many children from flourishing. Controversial view? You bet. Let’s unpick this.
When Ed Roberts and the Berkeley activists of the 1960s and 1970s campaigned for greater physical access to buildings and spaces for those who (like Ed) relied on wheelchairs and mobility support for day-to-day living, we witnessed the power of universal access through the lens of equity.
Ed and a group of activists named the “Rolling Quads” cut pavement kerbs in protest, enabling access for those using mobility support. This set the scene for a wave of disability rights, changes in law and improved living standards for all.
Dropping the kerb was (and is) especially important for those like Ed. But it also provides greater support for many others. Those with visual impairments, children not looking where they’re going, a parent with a buggy, an ageing and fragile individual, a weekend warrior who’s had too much to drink. We all benefit.
There are tons of strategies like this that exist in the classroom (dual coding, modelling thinking, full participation questioning, maximising resources for ripe homework conditions, teacher talk that doesn’t lose attention, beat gestures, hinge questions, etc.). Strategies that aim for the outlier and help everyone else, too. Necessary for some and useful for all. This article is not about getting into these strategies (for that, you’ll have to read my book – sorry!). Instead, I wish to acknowledge the importance of creating an inclusive culture as the foundation on which classroom practice can be built.
The biggest misconception about SEND
Ed Roberts and his friends had at least two things in common – they had disabilities and they were academically proficient. This is one of many examples that counters the biggest misconception about SEND – that those who have additional needs are “low-ability”. Being honest, I wonder if you ever hear any of these comments: “low-ability and SEND pupils”, “SEND resources”, “she’s SEND, so make sure you differentiate”. Even the common phrase “SEND pupils” carries serious undertones of low expectations, negative labelling and a homogenisation of pupil identity. Think about it: SEND pupils. “Special Educational Needs and Disability pupils”. Not how anyone would want to be referred to.
Barriers, not labels
As soon as you stick a label on something, the game’s over. In James Clear’s international bestselling book Atomic Habits, we’re informed of the habit loop. This is the way in which we generate new habits and why they’re so hard to break. It goes a bit like this:
Let’s review how this is typically played out when it comes to how we think about our pupils with SEND:
When you stick a label on a pupil, it begins to form a prism through which you view the child. Not only that, but how they view themselves and then how they behave. The medical model of healthcare has largely been summarised as seeing the person as the problem. Diagnosing individuals and instructing them on what they can do to get better so that they are able to exist in our world. Conversely, the social model of healthcare does not pin the blame on the person, but the wider economic, environmental and social barriers around the person. Put simply, the problem is not the person and their label – it’s the barrier blocking them from learning. Think back to Ed Roberts – the medical model would provide him with the wheelchair, but the social model would locate how and where to drop the kerb. This matters because it allows a step change from seeing all SEND as fixed, to that of a temporary state.
If a child has dyslexia, then this is not a fixed problem that they have no power over. There will likely be barriers to learning that the child, their teachers and family can recognise, reduce and possibly remove. For example, Malik has dyslexia, but so what? It’s not his label that’s the problem. Malik is brilliant once he gets going, but the problem is that he finds task initiation challenging. Malik can be supported to learn how to get going with the writing framework of Point, Evidence and Explain, along with some trusty sentence starters. Similarly, in primary, Malik might be supported to write a story through the well-known ‘story mountain’ graphic organiser (the opening, build up, climax, resolution and ending).
When we focus on the barrier, not the label, we avoid self-fulfilling prophecies of doom and gloom and make it clear to all that SEND does not mean low-ability. We evolve the dialogue from a request for assistance (“How can you help me?”) to a collaborative strategy (“What can we do together to ensure I learn?”).
Labels are necessary, but not sufficient
A brief caveat to the above is that for many pupils and families, labels are required to define next steps and end goals, receive healthcare support, and appreciate a wider, holistic understanding of the self. So, to an extent, they are necessary. Not only that, but for some of our most vulnerable children, their disability and/or learning need is so significant that it truly will be something that stays with them for life. It’s important not to undermine the gravity of this for that person and their family. However, any label is in and of itself not sufficient – it represents the tip of the iceberg.
Reaching the top vs. teaching to the top
Every child has strengths and the capacity to flourish in all sorts of ways. Teaching to the top implies a passive approach to pulling pupils up or simply hoping they’ll get there on their own, with the inevitable result being that those who need the support the most flounder rather than flourish. Ultimately, it runs the risk of getting desirable difficulty wrong – too much challenge and not enough support. Instead, it should be about forensic barrier-focused teaching and resourcing pupils to push themselves to succeed and reach the top.
Our great opportunity is not therefore to teach in a way that begins with showering pupils with challenging hinterland content, linking to extraneous cultural capital examples, and making links to other subject areas. Instead, we begin by making it clear to all pupils that here, in this school, in this classroom, everyone aims to reach the top. SEND labels might be a part of us, but they do not define all that we are. Nor do they ever hold us back. Every child, especially those with SEND, can reach their potential when we focus on the barriers (not the label).
Next, we drop the kerb by locating teaching and learning strategies that resource pupils to reach their full potential and the height of our expectations. The best teachers are those who think hard about the pupil who struggles the most. It enables them to focus heavily on how to teach in a way that will especially help that pupil learn. By doing this, the teacher significantly raises their game, considers barriers to learning and how to overcome them. Time and time again, this doesn’t just help the pupil who struggles the most, it helps everyone. Remember Malik and his teacher offering the writing support? This is especially useful for Malik, but it also equips the other pupils with a habitual approach to writing that supports how they too transfer their ideas onto paper. Over time the teacher will gradually fade away the writing support as the pupils become more expert. They may insist on pupils using this more or less depending on how they are progressing. The point is, the teacher started by dropping the kerb especially for Malik as well as for his peers. What is necessary for one, is useful for all.
Don’t call this semantics. This is about establishing culture, habitual practice, shared language, a common framework, and rowing together. Let’s not teach to the top. Let’s drop the curb on the road to success.
References:
Clear, J. (2018). Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones. Avery.
Galvin, A., Belcher, D., Mulholland, M., & Wiliam, D. (2026). Adaptive teaching – what are we adapting to, and why? SSAT (The Schools, Students and Teachers Network) & ASCL (Association of School and College Leaders). https://webcontent.ssatuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/25093629/SSAT-Formative-Assessment-Adaptive-Teaching.pdf.
Shapiro, J. P. (1993). No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. Random House.
Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S., & Oliver, M. (Eds.). (1993). Disabling Barriers, Enabling Environments. Sage Publications
Young, A. (2026). Adaptive Teaching: Culture to Classroom. Crown House Publishing.
About the author
Andrew Young is a Teacher of Social Sciences and Co-Director of Pathfinder Teaching School Hub (TSH). Andrew’s work includes the leadership, design and delivery of professional development across North Yorkshire and leadership of the TSH ITT programmes, where they train around 50 new teachers a year with York St John University. Having secured DfE approval for the Teaching School Hub Adaptive Teaching CPD programme over four years ago, Andrew has worked with hundreds of staff and schools on building an inclusive classroom climate.
Andrew’s book Adaptive Teaching: Culture to Classroom is available to purchase now. A discount is available for NACE members on this and all purchases from Crown House Publishing; log in to our member offers page for details.
You may also be interested in…
Blog Home
All Blogs
Print Page
RSS
