An Ethical Audit of the SEND CoP 2015: Professional Partnership Working and the Division of Ethical LabourAuthor(s):Hellawell, BeateSource:Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, v19 n1 p15-26 Jan 2019. 12 pp.Availability:Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDAURL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12422 Peer Reviewed:YISSN:1471-3802Descriptors:Special Education, Educational Needs, Disabilities, Special Needs Students, Partnerships in Education, EthicsAbstract:This exploratory qualitative interview study addresses some of the ethical challenges encountered by professionals in response to demands made by the special educational needs and disability (SEND) Code of Practice 2015 and considers how this may impact on partnership working. I identify two problems associated with the 2015 Code. One is a pre-occupation with implementation demands which obscures deeper unease and leaves moral doubt habitually unexplored. The second is the construction of the ‘good’ SEND professional as someone who conceals complexity, trades in professional certainties and can offer ‘straightforward’ advice. An ethical audit employing the conceptual lenses of goals, obligations and dispositions makes explicit ethical effects arising from SEND policy innovation and considers their defensibility. My study highlights how the new SEND framework can tempt professionals to equate ethics with conformity to the regulations of a statutory code, offering standardisation and the lure of following ‘straightforward’ rules as a way out for professionals who are caught in contradictory demands. In considering the division of ethical labour, which many participants employ as a means of coping with professional demands, I identify particular roles where this division appears no longer possible.Abstractor:As ProvidedNumber of References:-1Language:EnglishNumber of Pages:12Publication Type:Journal Articles; Reports – ResearchJournal Code:MAY2019Entry Date:2019Accession Number:EJ1210627Database:ERICYoursubmission must include the following information in the following format: DEFINITION: a brief definition of the key term followed by the APA reference for the term; thisdoes not count in the word requirement. SUMMARY: Summarize the article in your own words- this should be in the 150-200 wordrange. Be sure to note the article’s author, note their credentials and why we should put anyweight behind his/her opinions, research or findings regarding the key term. DISCUSSION: Using 300-350 words, write a brief discussion, in your own words of how thearticle relates to the selected chapter Key Term. A discussion is not rehashing what wasalready stated in the article, but the opportunity for you to add value by sharing yourexperiences, thoughts and opinions. This is the most important part of the assignment.REFERENCES: All references must be listed at the bottom of the submission–in APA format.Be sure to use the headers in your submission to ensure that all aspects of the assignment arecompleted as required. ..
Never use plagiarized sources. Get Your Original Essay on
An Ethical Audit of the SEND CoP 2015: Professional Partners
Hire Professionals Just from $11/Page