Department for Education Green Paper: Children and Young People ...

Department for Education Green Paper: Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities – Call for Views A response by the National Deaf Children’s Society October 2010

The National Deaf Children’s Society 15 Dufferin Street London EC1Y 8UR Tel: +44 (0) 20 7490 8656 (voice and text) Fax: +44 (0) 20 7251 5020 Email: [email protected] www.ndcs.org.uk

Introduction The National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS) is the leading charity dedicated to creating a world without barriers for deaf children and young people. There are over 35,000 deaf children living in England. Over 90% of deaf children are from families with no first-hand experience of deafness. NDCS helps deaf children thrive by providing impartial and practical emotional support to them and their families, and by challenging governments and society to meet their needs. 95% of our work to help deaf children is funded by the public. By deaf, we mean any child with a hearing loss. This could be a mild, moderate, severe or profound hearing loss. The term deaf does not presuppose the use of any one communication method and could refer to, for example, children who communicate orally or through sign language. We also include children who have a hearing loss in just one ear. NDCS welcomes the opportunity to respond to the call for views on the special educational needs green paper. We also welcome the commitment by the Government to build on existing reviews, including the Lamb inquiry. NDCS strongly supported the recommendations made by the Lamb inquiry. In our response, we set out our recommendations for action to ensure every deaf child gets a fair chance at school. These are based on the findings of our campaign reports Hands up for help!1 and Must do better!2 Government figures on deaf children’s underachievement at school is set out at www.ndcs.org.uk/data. Question 1: Are the Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disability statutory frameworks – including the SEN statementing process – helping children and young people to get what they need? If not, what changes could help? •

•

•

•

Parents of deaf children generally welcome the SEN Code of Practice and the sense of ‘entitlement’ it provides. However, they report that the practice of it by schools and local authorities falls short of expectations. It is important that any changes to the framework improve the incentives in place to comply, as well as existing problems in implementation, rather than reform for the sake of it. Research3 from Scotland on the impact of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Scotland Act 2004 suggests that structural reform does not in itself address underlying problems. The statutory framework applies largely to school-aged children, even though what happens in early years has the strongest impact on future attainment4. NDCS recommends that the assessment process should kick in at the point of diagnosis and apply to children aged 0 to 25 years. NDCS also recommends that services for children with special educational needs under the age of 2 should be provided on a statutory basis. In many cases, the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice tends to work by issuing a statement to a deaf child once they have fallen behind, even though all deaf children, include those who are high achievers, may still struggle to access the curriculum without extra support. The system should proactively, rather than reactively, assess the needs of deaf children and ensure that support is in place to prevent deaf children from falling behind. As deafness meets the legal definition of disability, all deaf children should receive an assessment. Evidence shows that even a mild hearing loss can have a negative impact on educational performance5. As part of this, it is also important that deaf children’s progress is monitored, reviewed and assessed annually, with action taken when two levels of progress are not made within the Key Stages. NDCS agrees with the recent Ofsted review of SEN and Disability6 that the framework should focus on outcomes for deaf children as the “end” to which additional specialist support is the

1

http://www.ndcs.org.uk/document.rm?id=5235 http://www.ndcs.org.uk/document.rm?id=3393 Edward, S., O’Neill, R., Weedon, E., & Riddell, S. (2009) The impact of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) Scotland Act 2004 on deaf children. University of Edinburgh. 4 Marc Marschark, Ph D and Patricia E Spencer, Ph D (2009) Evidence of best practice models and outcomes in the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: an international review. Center for Education Research Partnerships (CERP), National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology. 5 See footnote 2 above. 6 Ofsted (2010) A statement is not enough – Ofsted review of special educational needs and disability 2 3

NDCS response to Department for Education call for views on SEN and Disabilities Green Paper. Contact: [email protected]

2

•

•

•

“means”. The Code of Practice should be amended so that schools and local authorities focus on and set out expected outcomes that each deaf child should receive, and are held to account for failure to enable deaf children to achieve these expected outcomes. Even though health and social care services play a vital role in ensuring deaf children achieve good outcomes, the current framework only effectively holds local authorities to account. As Ofsted recommends, the framework should be amended to ensure shared accountability. This would improve joint working which has been shown to improve outcomes, especially in early years. Parents of deaf children lack confidence that assessments are determined not by what their deaf child needs but what is available in the area and what help the authority is willing to fund. As recommended by Sir Robert Balchin’s inquiry7 into special educational needs, NDCS believes assessments of special educational needs should be independent and separate from decisions of funding to eliminate this conflict of interest. NDCS has noted a number of cases where local authorities have persisted with cases to Tribunal and conceded at the last moment, before the hearing. In such cases, parent suspect that local authorities are “testing their resolve”. NDCS recommends that the number of instances where this happens is monitored by the Tribunal, and this information is used by the Department to identify local authorities where this happens regularly, so that the Department can raise with the authority. NDCS also recommends that greater use be made of mediation services within the Tribunal system.

Question 2: How can we identify children’s special educational needs earlier, and make sure they get that they get the support they need as quickly as possible? •

•

•

•

Half of deaf children are born deaf. For this group of deaf children, the Newborn Hearing Screening Programme, has made a huge difference to their life chances. Evidence8 shows that it is among the most vital interventions in supporting deaf children. The Government should reaffirm their commitment to the programme and to ensuring that screening coverage is complete, and that it leads to timely assessment and interventions, where necessary. The programme is accompanied by a number of indicators that allow parents to see how well the programme is running. These indicators have in the past revealed serious local difficulties in the running of the programme. To ensure the programme is working as it should and that there is greater transparency, data on performance against these indicators should be published annually. The other half of deaf children acquire deafness in their early years. To ensure this is identified as soon as possible: o All local authorities should have a school entry screening programme in place, at both primary and secondary school. Research9 in 2007 found that school entry screening was cost effective. Despite this, it was no longer being offered in 10% of local authorities and that the quality of the screening was variable. o GPs, teachers and SENCOs should receive training on how to identify the signs of deafness, particularly temporary deafness / glue ear, and be aware that many deaf children will acquire deafness after their newborn hearing screen. Medical diagnosis of deafness should trigger an assessment of the deaf child’s needs, as highlighted in response to Q1. Teachers of the Deaf should have input into any assessments. The assessment should set out shared accountability arrangements, including social care. Quality Assurance reports10 of the programme reveal that social care services are often missing at the point of diagnosis, even though, deaf children are ‘children in need’ by statute. All assessments should trigger access to support to families, as well as to the child. Evidence11 shows what effective support looks like. For pre-school deaf children, this should include access to the Early Support Family Pack and high quality information on deafness. For all

7

http://www.conservatives.com/pdf/specialneedsreport2007.pdf See footnote 2 Bamford, J. et al (2007). Health Technology Assessment. Vol. 11: No. 32. 10 http://hearing.screening.nhs.uk/getdata.php?id=18340 11 Yoshinaga-Itano, C (2003). From screening to early identification and intervention: Discovering predictors to successful outcomes for children with significant hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 11-30. 8 9


3

•

children, this means better, impartial support on deafness and communication, whether this be through learning family-friendly sign language or communication advice. It should also include access to advice on home learning programmes for deaf children and emotional support to parents. For deaf children who have additional needs, their assessment should set out what support is needed for each need, to address the problem of overshadowing. Assessment should be carried out by experts with a wider understanding of complex needs and disabilities.

Question 3: How can we improve the processes for special educational needs and disability – in schools, assessment, and across all services – so that professionals can spend more of their time with children and their families? •

•

•

Is it about processes or is it about capacity? NDCS’s survey of local authorities has revealed huge variations in the number of specialist Teachers of the Deaf working with deaf children. In terms of peripatetic or visiting Teachers of the Deaf, the number of deaf children that each visiting Teacher of the Deaf is expected to work with, ranges from 6 to 14212. However, good the process, a single Teacher of the Deaf cannot reasonably be expected to be able to adequately support 142 deaf children and their families. NDCS recommends the Government issue advice on what help deaf children should be able to expect to be able to make good educational progress – for example, to have their abilities assessed by an expert Teacher of the Deaf – so that local authorities are clear on what help needs to be funded, and hence, how many Teachers of the Deaf it needs to employ. It is vital that the right professionals spend time with deaf children. Ofsted13 have found that children with special educational needs make greater progress when they work with specialist teachers rather than with teaching assistants. This shows that Teachers of the Deaf have a vital role to play and that teaching assistants should not be used as a substitute for quality support from a Teacher of the Deaf or a mainstream teacher. Assessment processes between different agencies should be streamlined so that the number of assessments for each child is kept to a minimum.

Question 4: How can we ensure all schools and colleges have high expectations for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including their future potential and contribution to society? •

•

•

•

•

12 13

The Department should issue a clear statement that makes it clear that deafness in itself is not a learning disability and there is no real reason why most deaf children should be achieving any less than any other child, providing their assessment is swift and that it triggers the support they need. As mentioned in response to Q1, the framework should hold schools and local authorities to account for the outcomes achieved by deaf children and any failure to ensure that the deaf child makes the same rate of progress as other children, to ensure high expectations. Each teacher should receive an automatic entitlement to additional training and expert information when a deaf child is enrolled in their classroom. This should include information on equality legislation and inclusion, as well as practical information on how to adjust the curriculum and ensure the classroom has high quality acoustics to ensure that deaf children have full access to their teaching. All mainstream teachers should have input from an expert visiting Teacher of the Deaf. There is a lack of evidence-based research into what interventions successfully raise deaf children’s outcomes. This means it’s very difficult for practitioners to assess ‘what works’. Conducting more research and identifying best practice should be a priority going forward. 90% of families with deaf children have no previous experience of deafness. And many deaf children attend mainstream schools where they are the only deaf child. This means many deaf children have no exposure to successful deaf adults. Local authorities should provide all deaf See: http://www.ndcs.org.uk/professional_support/national_data/england_2009_ndcs.html Ofsted (2006) Inclusion: does it matter where deaf children are taught?


4

•

•

children and their families with access to deaf role models. This could be done in partnership with community groups. All Ofsted inspections of provision for deaf children should be carried out by a specialist inspector with expertise in deafness. Ofsted should publish information on what expertise they expect their specialist inspectors to hold. To date, Ofsted have refused to publish this information. Ofsted should also clarify what constitutes “good progress”. NDCS’s review of Ofsted inspection reports of provision for deaf children has found that there is a tendency to be vague on what “good” means in the context of deaf education. For example, does it mean that the classroom has high quality acoustics and that a child who communicates in British Sign Language is working with a communication support worker with advanced sign language skills? Ofsted should also ensure that inspectors report on whether the local authority and school have produced accessibility strategies and plans. NDCS rarely sees evidence of this in inspection reports, even though it is required by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.

Question 5: How can we improve the choices of schools and services available to parents and improve the opportunities for them to be involved in decisions that affect their family? •

•

•

•

•

•

The Department should require local authorities to publish localised information on their eligibility criteria and what help is available specifically to deaf children in their area, and ensure it is published in such a way to enable parents to compare the services in their area with other areas. This will better enable parents to exercise informed choice. Local authorities should have a strategic responsibility to ensure they can provide a continuum of provision for all children with special educational needs in their area, to allow parents of deaf children to exercise informed choice. This continuum is unavailable in many areas. Many local authorities are too small to offer the breadth of provision and expertise that deaf children in their area require. Despite this, many local authorities are reluctant to fund out of authority provision even where they cannot meet the individual needs of deaf children. For example, Cornwall has no specialist provision for deaf children who communicate using British Sign Language but appears to resist any requests to fund out of authority placements. In many areas, regional commissioning would address this. The Department should analyse what the optimal size of a service is, learning from the experiences of services such as Berkshire (see response to Q7). This analysis should look at what is needed to be able to ensure better educational outcomes and well-being for all deaf children in the area, from early years, through transition into adult life and employment. Following this analysis, the Department should assess whether local authorities can meet the needs of all deaf children in their area. If not, they should require local authorities to collaborate with other services in their region to commission comprehensive services that meet the needs of all deaf children. Effective choice requires that all schools be physically accessible to deaf children. The Department should take steps to implement the Ministerial statement of October 2009 on acoustics in schools, ensuring that all new schools, including free schools, are tested for their acoustics before they open. Research (see Q7) shows that improved acoustics make a big difference and can be achieved at low cost. Delegation of funding for services for deaf children undermines the ability of schools and services to offer choice. It can mean that the help that deaf children receive is determined not by what they need, but where they live or what type of school they go to. The Department should ensure that no local authority can delegate funding for specialist support services for deaf children to all schools in the area unless a full assessment has been carried out and guarantees can be given that the help that deaf children receive will be determined by what they need, and not what type of school they attend. The Department should also ensure that when schools opt out of local authority control and convert to academies, this does not disadvantage support services for deaf children. Little progress appears to have been made in advancing commitments made during debates on the Academies Act 2010 earlier this year.


5

•

The Department should also issue best practice guidance on effective ways of funding and delivering services, in addition to the traditional model of local authority centrally-funded and centrally-provided services. The Department should also consider extending the free schools programme to specialist support services, allowing parents of deaf children and professionals to seek the permission of the Secretary of State to set up their own services for deaf children, with direct funding from the Secretary, where the local authority has failed to provide an adequate level of help and support to deaf children.

Question 6: How can we improve the transition from school to adult life for young people with special educational needs and disabilities the support provided for their families throughout? •

• • •

•

•

The framework should be simplified and streamlined so that help is provided to deaf young people on a consistent basis from 0 to 25, regardless of whether they attend college or 6th form, go to university and/or undertake apprenticeships. The current system where a statement ends at age 16 and is (sometimes) replaced with an assessment of learning disabilities is confusing and creates a risk that some deaf children will fall through the net. There should be a single assessment process. Deaf young people should be provided with free access to English and Maths classes, tailored to their needs, if they have not achieved the expected benchmark at the age of 16. Deaf young people should be allowed to retain any equipment they need if they move from one placement to another, without having to undergo repeated assessments. There should be a greater focus on emotional well-being and independence for deaf young people. Specialist support services should be tasked with ensuring every deaf young people has received adequate careers advice, emotional well-being advice and has developed independence skills. Specialist support services should develop greater contacts with Connexions services to ensure that deaf children receive good careers advice. The views of deaf young people on what help they need during transition should be sought and used to develop effective transitional programmes. NDCS is currently piloting a project that aims to do this for audiology services. Currently, Access to Work is only available for paid work. Deaf young people should have access to Access to Work funding if they are undertaking unpaid work or internships, or for use in job interviews. The application process for Access to Work should be streamlined so that it provides financial support speedily and at short notice.

Question 7: Ideas and examples of what’s working well The Berkshire Sensory Consortium Service provides specialist educational support to children with visual and multi-sensory impairments, as well as deaf children, on behalf of six small local authorities. It began over ten years ago, and its contract is renewed every three years. By joining forces, the consortium is able to provide comprehensive coverage across the whole area in a way that is not possible for the six local authorities to do individually. For example, it provides preschool groups, parent workshops and social activities for older deaf pupils. Consortiums like this can also deliver valuable economies of scale and deliver effective partnership working. Its contract has recently been renewed for a further two years, taking it up until 2013. Sweyne Park School in Essex14, which has a resource base for deaf children, has been the subject of an experiment to study the impact of improved acoustics. It has found that improved acoustics can be achieved at relatively low cost and effectively equalise the playing field between deaf children and all children. It also improves behaviour management.

14

http://www.ndcs.org.uk/document.rm?id=4603


6