Driver Youth Trust Response to Bercow 10 Years

Driver Youth Trust Response to Bercow 10 Years

On Inquiry

About Driver Youth Trust

Driver Youth Trust (DYT) is a national charity dedicated to improving the life chances of children and young people, with a focus on those with literacy difficulties and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), particularly children with dyslexia.

Our flagship programme, Drive for Literacy, is a whole school model for literacy, built around the Graduated Approach to SEND and starting from Quality First Teaching. Its aim is to build teacher capability and school capacity to identify and support children who struggle with reading, writing, speaking and listening.

We commission research and campaign for policy change so that all children, including those with dyslexia, get the right support to learn to read and write and reach their full potential. Joining the Dots looks at the impact of recent education reforms on learners with SEND, while Fish in the Tree asks the question ‘‘Why are we failing children with dyslexia?”

We work in partnership with other organisations to help children to access education, build their confidence and realise their goals.

Responding to this Inquiry

We welcome this inquiry by ICAN and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists into the state of provision for children’s speech, language and communication needs (SLCN). It comes at an important time in the education debate to ensure that SEND Learners are central to policy making. We want to celebrate good practice and recognise how much further we need to go.

DYT is responding to the inquiry using a mix of our policy and research remit combined with the first-hand experiences of our specialist teachers and the schools that we work with. We have responded as closely as possible to the questions identified by ICAN and RCSLT.

Any questions please email

1.How can we help raise awareness of the importance of speech, language and communication at a local and national level?

•SEND, in which we include SLCN, is a complex area and remains the preserve of the specialist, shrouded in mystery and out of the remit of the “mainstream” media and policy. SEND focussed organisations should collaborate to lobby the government, local authorities, Think Tanks and other charities to ensure that SLCN provision is a high priority for these bodies.

•Third sector and professional bodies should consider the use of “awareness days” and how they can be best harnessed to promote SLCN issues. Organisations that work with literacy need to develop good practice by engaging with both SEND generally and SLCN, and see them as part of their remit.

•When funding literacy initiatives/reports, individuals/ organisations should include specific funding criteria that will encourage bids from those looking at truly universal approaches and/or approaches that make best use of specialists.

•Organisations which work with SLCN need to develop good practice in terms of their own communication strategies by learning from other pressure groups, such as autism charities, and engage with wider audiences and promote a broad understanding that disability, such as SLCN, can happen to anyone and will happen to everyone. It is not something that concerns a minority, but us all.

•‘Inclusion’ training is for everyone in every organisation, educational, charitable, public service or commercial, so that all stakeholders understand that we are disabled by the environment that surrounds us. This means that a person with SLCN (or indeed, any other impairment) may be disabled in one place, but not in another.

•Up to date information on SLCN and associated needs must be available to all health professionals, in particular those working with children and families.

•Up to date information on SLCN and associated needs must be available to all teaching and school staff. Teachers and school staff need to be able to both recognise difficulties in speech and language and know where to turn to for help and advice. This includes understanding of typical language development through initial teacher training (ITT) and continuous professional development (CPD). While awareness may be high in the EYFS and primary sectors, this is not necessarily the case for secondary teachers.

•Time needs to be given to education professionals to understand that therapeutic approaches to speech and communication are not something that can be delivered in 20 minute slots twice a week, but are embedded in all practice, in a similar way to DYT’s whole school programme: Drive for Literacy.

2.Please provide us with examples of good practice regarding support for children and young people with SLCN. What difference are they making for children and young people? Are there economic benefits?

•When young people can benefit from their education, they can then to go on to live productive and independent lives. This means that young people with SLCN are able not only to make an economic contribution to their community, but also that they participate in work in an adult environment.

•There is an array of evidence to prove the economic benefit of ensuring that schools implement a full system of support for pupils with SLCN. This is also the case for providing effective literacy strategies for those with dyslexia, many statistics can be found in our Fish in the Tree Report. Where possible we must ensure that good practice for SEND is applied in every classroom.

•A child or young person who can communicate effectively is empowered to understand the world around them, and to make themselves understood. This can be anything from ordering lunch to being be able to explain a symptom to a doctor, or telling a trusted adult about abuse.

•‘Total Communication’, which integrates sign language (commonly Makaton), symbols (using Communicate in Print), simple rhymes and songs, objects of reference and technology means that education professionals in schools can provide an environment which allows all children and adults to communicate effectively in ways that are accessible to all, by embedding good practice into the everyday. This means that all children, regardless of their speech and language needs, have access to tools which enable them to communicate with their teachers, families and friends.

•One of our partner schools identified that many practitioners lacked the confidence or skills in correctly identifying concerns in language and communication. Support was bought in by an independent speech and language therapist. She supports staff through the early identification of S&L issues, modelled interventions as well as providing personalised programmes for individuals. Recent training has helped staff improve their skills and confidence in supporting children.

3.Please provide us with examples of poor practice regarding support for children and young people with SLCN. What can we learn from them and why?

Poor practice includes:

•A refusal/inability to specify and quantify SaLT provision for children and young people with an EHCP/SSEN by local authorities.

•A refusal/inability of schools to provide SaLT, even when recommended by professionals and specified in EHCP/SSEN due to lack of staff training/understanding, in particular of therapeutic approaches, or schools not recognising the importance of SLCN.

•An inability to provide specific communication teaching by schools because of curriculum pressures.

•A lack of awareness of the role of SaLTs and their services by parents.

•A lack of continuity of professional services provided by Local Authorities and NHS.

•A lack of resource, in time and in personnel, in order to facilitate timely intervention.

•A lack of understanding of how SLCN may present in those individuals who do not have intellectual impairments in general.

What we learn is:

•Our Joining the Dots Reportfound that since the Children and Families Act (2014), SEND provision is ‘fragmented’ leading to difficulties in sharing information and knowledge. As a result, many children and young people do not receive the support they deserve and gaps in the system lead to wasted resources as well as disconnected or duplicated services. Ultimately students, parents, schools and sector organisations are finding it difficult to navigate the new system, which must be addressed.

•A culture change in Local Authorities towards SEND in general is needed. Local Authorities need to work with parents and professionals to truly co-create plans and start to see themselves this way, rather than in opposition to them.

•SaLT departments need to be effectively managed and staff retained so that good professional networks and relationships may be forged and maintained.

•Communication channels for parents need to be reviewed, so that all stakeholders can understand the nature of SLCN/SaLT services.

•Training on SLCN needs to be shared by all school staff, rather than the domain of one or two specialists, and further support provided and well signposted.

•Schools need the freedom to create curriculum pathways for their students that reflect the needs of children and young people rather than those of governments keen to look good on an international stage.

4.What have been your experiences of the commissioning of SLCN support locally? What does or does not work well?

•‘Total Communication Gloucestershire’, integrates sign language (commonly Makaton), symbols (using Communicate in Print), simple rhymes and songs, objects of reference and technology, and makes resources and training available to Gloucestershire schools. Total Communication services are also available in other areas.

•Courses, technology, supporting IT and an advisory teaching service are available to Gloucestershire schools. This means that schools, teachers and children/young people have access to specialist support.

•The use of ‘Communication Keys’, throughout some London based Local Authorities has improved the delivery of intervention work when a SaLT is not available, so that support staff may carry out valuable strategies for those learners with SLCN.

•Our partner schools in Hastings are able to commission services from an independent speech therapist. Interventions such as Talk Boost and Talking @Partners are widely available in schools.

•Medical conditions such as Down’s syndrome and where difficulties with feeding,

e.g. swallowing, and hearing which are detected early result in referral to Speech Therapy within the health service. Parents or health professionals may refer children to see a speech therapist.

However,

•Where expertise remains limited to a few people, such as a 1-1 TA or a SENCO or support, such as technology or IT software, is not used, effective provision is restricted.

•When school staff have a high turnover/difficulties in retention, it can become the case that what might appear on the surface to be a well-trained staff isn’t at all.

•Where there are reductions to Health Visitors, Welfare Nurses/School Nurses, early problems with speech and language development may not be picked up.

•Where there are cuts to SEN services at LA level e.g. advisory teaching service, Portage or Surestart, there are restrictions on both progress and support for young people, which in turn limits their development.

•Commissioning has led to a detachment of communication between stake holders and external agencies, as it has given rise to collective information not being shared when evidence for the application of an EHCP is requested.

•There can be a lack of professional continuity in terms of the service(s) provided by agencies that are not part of the NHS.

•Commissioning has not been as effective, to enjoin Education and Health care services as is recommended in the CoP and the Bercow report.

5.What have been your experiences of support for i) older children and young people and ii) children with low incidence, high need conditions (such as hearing impairment) iii) children without a diagnosis of SLCN? What are the key challenges affecting support for these groups and how can they be addressed?

•Within special school environments, support for SLCN can be high, e.g. signing lessons, and a focus on reading, social learning and communication.

•Outside of the school system, support for young people with SLCN, for example in shops, clubs/activities and community groups, is minimal. Inclusion departments exist, however, this does not mean that more than a few staff are trained in communication techniques, or even in understanding the needs of individuals with communication needs.

•Where groups are inclusive, there is an attitude of mind in leadership, rather than specific training. The fact that a young person with communication needs turns

up and wants to join in is not seen as an unwelcome surprise, but as a challenge to be met readily.

Key challenges are:

•A lack of understanding of SLCN by the wider population; what it means and what it is, and how it can be expressed in an individual.

•Effective inclusion in education settings for young people with additional requirements of all kinds beyond the primary school years.

•Access to support and information for groups where skill may be low but attitude high.

Support could be improved by:

•Ensuring that the Equality Act (2010) is complied with while understanding that the biggest barrier to participation is not the law, but attitudes.

•Ensuring that up-to-date information is available to all health professionals, and especially those working with children and families.

•Encouraging all schools to invest in ‘Total Communication’ for all staff and revisit it regularly.

•Enabling secondary schools to include young people with additional learning requirements, such as SLCN, more effectively by examining the drivers behind exclusive practise, e.g. accountability systems that rely on young people’s attainment in a narrow field.

•Ensuring that access to support for inclusive practise is easily available to community groups, so that support can be put into place quickly and easily.

6.Please provide us with examples of national and local systems that support early identification of SLCN. What have your experiences been of early identification of SLCN? What more can be done to reduce the risk of unmet/unidentified needs?

Support for early identification:

•Where there is an early diagnosis, such as in Down’s syndrome, this can mean that health protocols dictate access to SaLTs. This does, however, require an early diagnosis within the health system, before questions of who will pay for the therapy arise.

•Early education, such as Portage or Surestart, are invaluable in supporting families to engage their young children in therapeutic play.

•Early identification in Ealing, Harrow and Brent has meant that support can be offered at the pre-school stage and the learner benefits from structured speech and language intervention.

•Early family support enables families and young children to meet with services, such as speech therapy, in an informal and unthreatening way that allows parents and carers to both access specialist support and create support networks of their own.

•Once a child enters the school system, the Graduated Approachshould ensure that requirements are identified and needs are met.

What can be done?

•Early hearing checks and developmental checks by midwives and health visitors are of immense value and must be supported. Services must not be stretched too thinly.

•Investment in early educational programmes, such as Portage, is a priority so that intervention such as therapeutic play and early speech therapy can happen in the home.

•Access to support through Surestart must be strengthened.

•Professional links between SaLT services and education, from nursery to sixth form and beyond must be strengthened.

•The number of speech and language therapists must be adequate to meet need.

•Expertise must be shared by access to training and support for teachers and families.

7.Are there opportunities to improve support for children with SLCN that should be further explored? What are they, and what action needs to be taken to make them work?

Our Recommendations

1.SEND must become a priority for all schools, by having an inclusion module in training for all head teachers and by a critical examination of the drivers behind exclusionary practises.

2.During 2017, audit the availability of specialist provision needed to support learners with their reading, writing, speaking and listening requirements.

3.LA advisory teams must include SaLT in its own right.

4.Increase knowledge and skills for all school staff, especially at secondary level, so that they are enabled to deliver SLCN interventions/therapeutic approaches through a continuous cycle of training for health and education staff.

5.Work with existing groups such as Down’s Syndrome Education/Portage/Autism charities to learn from success.

6.Create a review tool of systems and processes for organisations such as community groups, activities, commercial organisations serving the community regarding inclusion.

7.Examine the usefulness of designating SLCN either ‘health’ or ‘education’, which leads to difficulties over both understanding the role of SaLT and budgetary considerations.

8.Focus on deprived social-economic areas with particular regard to young offenders and the impact of deprivation.

9.Consider home design and school lunch/snack times to be essential components of speech and language development.

10.Create an SLCN friendly mark (similar to the Autism Friendly Mark).

DYT Response to Bercow: Ten Years On

Inquiry regarding children and young people with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)