Briefing for Peers ahead of Second Reading of the Children and Families Bill

This briefing has been prepared ahead of the Second Reading Debate on Tuesday 2nd July on the Children and Families Bill. Thisbriefingsets out the collective view of The Communication Trust, a coalition of 47 voluntary organisations with expertise in speech, language and communication needs (SLCN), on the legislation following its passage through the House of Commons.

The Trust welcomes the Government’s overall vision to improve outcomes for children with SEN and we broadly support the intention of the clauses in Part 3 of the Bill. However, we continue to have specific concerns about the effect of some of the changes on the one million children and young people in the UK with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN); the most prevalent special educational need in primary-aged children.

This briefing covers the following:

  • The Trust’s overarching concerns about the Children and Families Bill
  • How early identification will be encouraged
  • Guidance for local offers
  • How the single category of SEN will function
  • Accountability for the new health duty
  • Support for children in PVI early years settings
  • The role of schools under the reforms
  • Support for young offenders
  • Background to SLCN
  • Background to The Communication Trust

The Trust’s overarching concerns about the Children and Families Bill

1.How early identification will be encouraged

Early identification[1] is the key to improving the educational outcomes for children and young people with SLCN; the Trust remains concerned over how the Bill will ensure that the mechanisms for identificationwill work in practice across all educational phases[2] and also on local authorities’ ability to identify needs as early as possible, and to respond to these needs. There also needs be clearer guidance across health, education and social care on how to identify SLCN, ensuring they are identifying to expected levels of prevalence relative to their context.

Point to raise:Given thatearly Identification is the key to improving the educational outcomes for children and young people with speech and language communication needs, do you agree that the Government should introduce clearguidance to all providers of health, education and social care on how to identify SLCN to ensure that the at least 10% of children and young people with communications difficulties have their needs met?

2.Guidance for local offers

The Trust is pleased that section 11(a) of the draft regulations state that Local Offers must set out what speech and language therapy (SLT) provision is available. However there remains a lack of clarity on channels of accountability for the quality and delivery of the services set out in the Local Offer,such ashow LAs ensure access to language and communication beyond SLT services[3]. Without a more detailed national framework (or ‘Common Framework’) to guide Local Authorities in how to construct their Offer, and the place of speech and language within that, we are concerned about whether children with SLCN who do not qualify for an EHC plan will have their needs met.

3.How the single category of SEN will function

We welcome the Minister’s comments that those children and young people with SEN (including SLCN) who would not be eligible to receive an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan[4] will continue to be tracked under the new framework but we would like further reassurances about how the single category of SEN will function in practice, particularly so it does not compromise the identification of need.

Point to raise. Parents and communication charities have long held that they have to “fight” to get the right support for their children with SLCN, which they fear will only get worse with the local offer and under the new Single Category of SEN; we need to ensure that mechanisms are being put in place to ensure that locally there is an obligation to ensurepupils with SLCN are adequately supported in schools and settings.

4.Accountability for the new health duty

While the Trust welcomes the intention behind the introduction of a new duty on health providers, we would like further detail to be provided on how joint commissioning arrangements will work in practice, especially in regard to how health services will be held accountable at all levels within the new structure. We have concerns over how the duty will function in relation to Clause 21, which states that provision will only be enforceable if “wholly or mainly” for the purposes of education or training, and would like clarification on how the new duty will be applied in relation to this.

Point to raise. There needs to be further clarification about how the new duty on health providers will function in relation to Clause 21 of the Children and Families Bill, which states that provision will only be enforceable if “wholly or mainly” for the purposes of education or training, and state how the new duty will be applied in relation to this.

5.Support for children in PVI early years settings

We remain concerned that non-maintained early years provision (Private, Voluntary and Independent childcare settings) are not referenced throughout the document, which could lead to inconsistent duties on maintained and non-maintained providers and a lack of a level playing field for providers. Moreover with the creation of childminder agencies in Part 4 we are concerned about how all children, including those in early years non-maintained settings, are identified and receive the support they need.

Point to raise. With the creation of childminder agencies in Part 4 of the Children and Families Bill, how will children with speech and language communication needs, including those in early years non-maintained settings, be identified and receive the support they need?

6.The role of schools under the reforms

We welcome the declaration that communication and interaction is a primary need in the draft Code of Practice, as well as the inclusion of speech and language therapy services. However we hold concerns that the role of schools in SEN provision remains on the periphery of the Bill, as there is a lack of detail on what responsibilities they will hold. This is reflected in the Code of Practice regarding the vague passages on ‘quality first teaching’ and involving pupils in schools’ SEN policies and information reports that require far more detail to be provided, particularly in light of the fact that the Code of Practice states that ‘all teachers are teachers of children with special educational needs’.

Point to raise. For the Children and Families Bill to work in practice, teachers and the wider education workforce will need sufficient knowledge of how to identify and support both SEN and SLCN, especially when evidence shows that knowledge of SLCN among the education workforce is worrying low and an estimated 10% of pupils have been identified as having SLCN and far more still go unidentified, surely there needs to be a mechanism in thisBill to ensure that the education workforce has the skills and knowledge required.

7.Support for young offenders

At least 60% of young people in custody have communication needs[5]. In the majority of cases, these young people’s communication difficulties have not been identified and their needs go un-met at great cost to both the public purse and the young people themselves. Therefore we remain extremely concerned that detained children and young people will not be covered by the provisions of the Children and Families Bill. The Trust firmly believe that services for young offenders should be integrated with the provisions of this Bill, as we are not content with the Government’s current position that young offenders needs are covered by provision set out in prior legislation and the reassurances that they will be improved by the imprecise proposals set out in the Ministry’s of Justice’s Transforming Youth Custody Green Paper.

Point to raise. How will the Government ensure that the at least 60% of young people in custody have communication needs have their communication difficulties both identified and met if young offenders are not being included within the scope of the Children and Families Bill?

Background to SLCN

  • As many as 10% of children in the UK – over 1 million - have speech, language and communication needs, which are not caused by language neglect, or by having English as an additional language or other external factors[6]. This means that in the average classroom, there are two or three children with such communication difficulties, which can be severe and long term.
  • Of this group, a large cohort – between 5-7% of the child population - have specific language impairment (SLI), meaning that they have difficulties with acquiring, learning and using language that are not associated with factors such as general learning difficulties, or other conditions, such as cerebral palsy, hearing impairment or autistic spectrum disorders. A child with SLI might be bright, but struggle to listen to and understand the language used in the classroom or use language to express themselves effectively, and thus struggle to attain and achieve.
  • DfE annual SEN statistics demonstrate that SLCN is the most common type of primary need for pupils with SEN statements in maintained primary schools. In January 2011, 27.9% of pupils in maintained primary schools had SLCN registered as their primary need[7].
  • A further issue is that in areas of social deprivation upwards of 50% of children are starting school with language delay[8]. This delay can be significant and impactful. And while their general cognitive abilities are in the average range for their age, their language skills are delayed. Evidence suggests these delays do not necessarily catch up and conversely can remain so into secondary school, impacting on literacy and more general attainment. In fact, impact on literacy can widen significantly as children progress through school[9]
  • Speaking and listening can often be seen as less formal and therefore a less important element of children’s learning. However research suggests reading difficulties can be compounded if children are taught written language before their spoken language skills are developed enough to access this teaching.[10]
  • At the end of primary school, although nearly 80% of all children achieve the expected level in English, just 25% of children with SLCN reach that level – a gap of almost 55%. The gap in Maths is 46% and in science it is 41%. At the end of Key Stage 4, the ‘attainment gap’ between children with SLCN and their peers is marked. Just 15% of children with SLCN achieve 5 GCSE A*-C or equivalent compared to 57% of all young people. Many of these children are cognitively as able as their peers.
  • SLCN can easily be missed or misinterpreted; almost 90% of all children with SLCN will have some degree of literacy difficulty; a high proportion of children either excluded from school or at risk of exclusion have unidentified SLCN and more than 65% of young people in youth justice sector have communication needs, many of which have previously gone unidentified.

Background to The Communication Trust

The Communication Trust is a coalition of 47 voluntary and community organisations with expertise in speech, language and communication. We harness our collective expertise to support the children’s workforce and commissioners to meet the speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) of all children and young people, particularly those with SLCN. We do this by raising awareness, providing information and workforce development opportunities, influencing policy, promoting best practice among the children’s workforce and commissioning work from our members. The Trust is advised by specialist advisors and works with a broader network of partners.

The Trust was founded in 2007 by children’s charities Afasic and I CAN together with BT and the Council for Disabled Children, to ensure that professionals can access the training and advice that they need to support the children they work with. We have developed a number of resources to support practitioners who work with children and young people and provide advice on SLCN.

Speech language and communication skills are the foundation for other key life skills: learning, literacy, positive relationships and regulation of behaviour and emotions[11]. Speaking and listening skills underpin pupil outcomes; young people with good communication skills have a wider range of life chances[12].

[1] When we use the term ‘early identification’ we mean the earliest point or points at which a child/young person experiences a SLC difficulty, which may happen in any educational phase, not just in early years.

[2] SLCN is often under-identified; a recent Trust project, Talk of the Town, evidenced that across a Federation of Schools, children and young people’s SLCN were under-identified by an average of 40%. The Better Communication Research Programme backs up the huge challenges that remain for universal staff in identifying SLCN, with a mismatch in research derived prevalence and identification in schools.

[3] Examples of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and communication support for deaf children are given in this briefing.

[4]86 % of all children with SEN do not have a statement.

[5] Bryan, K and Mackenzie J (2008), Meeting the Speech, Language and Communication Needs of Vulnerable Young People.

[6] I CAN, The Cost to the Nation of Children’s Poor Communication (2006) and Law et al (2000) Provision for children’s speech and language needs in England and Wales: facilitating communication between education and health services DfES research report 23

[7] DfE SEN Information Act, 2011 Analysis

[8] Basic Skills Agency, Summary Report into Young Children’s Skills on Entry to Education (2002). Also Locke and Ginsborg, Development and Disadvantage: Implications for Early Years IJCLD Vol 27 No 1 (2002)

[9]The effects of weakness in oral language on reading comprehension (Hirsch, 1996).

[10]Locke, E., Ginsborg, J. and Peers, I. (2002) Development and Disadvantage:implications for early years IJLCD Vol 27 No1

[11] Silva P, Williams S & McGee R, (1987): A Longitudinal Study of Children with Developmental Delay at age three years; later intellectual, reading and behaviour problems. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 630 – 640

[12]Improving Achievement in English Language in Primary and Secondary Schools (2003) HMIE