RNIB Submission to Education and Skills Select Committee on Special Educational Needs

Wednesday 1 March 2006

@BR@

@CENTER@

@TABLE60%@Members present:

Mr Barry Sheerman, in the Chair / Mr Douglas Carswell
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods / Helen Jones
Mr David Chaytor / Mr Gordon Marsden
Mrs Nadine Dorries / Stephen Williams
Jeff Ennis / Mr Rob Wilson

@/CENTER@

CONTENTS

Memorandum submitted by RNIB

RNIB Submission to Education and Skills Select Committee on Special Educational Needs

Memorandum submitted by The Down's Syndrome Association

Memorandum submitted by the British Council of Disabled People

Memorandum submitted by Disability Equality in Education

Memorandum submitted by the Alliance for Inclusive Education

Witnesses: Ms Elizabeth Clery, RNIB, Ms Carol Boys, Down's Syndrome Association, Ms Simone Aspis, British Council of Disabled People, Mr Richard Rieser, Disability Equality in Education, and Ms Micheline Mason, Alliance for Inclusive Education, gave evidence.

Question Numbers

573-579

580-599

600-615

Memorandum submitted by the National Autistic Society

Memorandum submitted by the British Dyslexia Association

Memorandum submitted by I CAN

Memorandum submitted by Mencap

Witnesses: Mr Mike Collins, National Autistic Society, Dr Susan Tresman (Visiting Professor), British Dyslexia Association, Ms Virginia Beardshaw, I CAN, and Mr David Congdon, Mencap, gave evidence.

616-619

620-639

640-652

Supplementary memorandum submitted by I CAN

Memorandum submitted by RNIB

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.Introduction

2.RNIB's Policy Position on the Education of Blind and Partially Sighted Pupils

RNIB believes that every pupil with a visual impairment is entitled to high quality education with equal access to appropriate specialist provision no matter where he/she lives within the UK.

3.Provision for SEN Pupils in Mainstream Schools: Availability of Resources and Expertise; Different Models of Provision

A major concern for RNIB is the huge variation across the country in educational provision for blind and partially sighted pupils. There is variation between LEAs in terms of type of educational placement available and in standards of educational support provided.

The three key components that together promote the successful inclusion of pupils who are blind and partially sighted are:

@UL@—A coherent system of funding that promotes the organisation of high quality central support services. Of particular concern to RNIB is the drive towards greater delegation of SEN funds from central LEA control direct to schools. RNIB considers that this arrangement is inappropriate for low incidence SEN such as sensory impairments, which require a high degree of specialist teaching support and resources and due to economies of scale function better under a centrally organised and funded model.@/UL@

@UL@—A national set of standards that are universally adopted by local authorities. Despite the publication of national Quality Standards for Education Support Services for Children and Young People with Visual Impairment (DfES, 2002) there is no consistent standard of specialist support across LEAs, which suggests that the standards are not being implemented.@/UL@

@UL@—The readiness of mainstream schools to admit and take responsibility for blind and partially sighted children, and the commitment of the LEA in promoting and supporting this.@/UL@

4.Provision for SEN Pupils in Special Schools

A key concern with respect to provision for blind and partially sighted pupils who are placed in special schools other than those specifically for visually impaired children is that a considerable proportion of these pupils do not receive adequate specialist educational support to meet their visual impairment needs. This may be because:

@UL@—Their visual impairment has not been identified.@/UL@

@UL@—The implications of their visual impairment has not been recognised because of the severity of their learning, physical and/or medical difficulties.@/UL@

@UL@—There is insufficient expertise within special schools and VI services to meet the needs of pupils with visual impairment and additional complex difficulties.@/UL@

5.Raising Standards of Achievement for SEN Pupils

@UL@—Any attempt to raise the standards of achievement of pupils with visual impairment must first address the issues of quality standards in terms of educational provision, and to the design and delivery of the curriculum.@/UL@

@UL@—There are concerns that the examination system denies some visually impaired pupils the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding properly.@/UL@

6.The System of Statements of Need for SEN Pupils (the Statementing Process)

@UL@—Statements continue to provide an essential framework for assessment and provision. Parents and schools may see them as the only means to guaranteeing additional provision for the child.@/UL@

@UL@—There is wide variation in the quality and clarity of statements and it is important to have a document that clearly sets out a pupil's needs and entitlements but at the same time is not overly prescriptive.@/UL@

7.The Role of Parents in Decisions About Their Children's Education

RNIB has some evidence that, despite there being a range of statutory services designed to support parents such as Parent Partnership and Dispute Resolution Services, they are not fully utilised by parents of visually impaired children.

8.How Special Educational Needs are Defined

@UL@—The published data on SEN is by primary need only. This approach underestimates the number of pupils with visual impairment because it is estimated that at least half of the population has additional disabilities and it is likely for many pupils that the visual impairment is registered as their secondary disability.@/UL@

@UL@—Subsuming low incidence disabilities such as visual impairment within the SEN label carries with it the risk that policies may be driven by the needs of the majority.@/UL@

9.Recommendations

@UL@—Delegation of SEN funding to schools should not apply to low incidence SEN such as visual impairment. LEA VI services should be organised and funded centrally.@/UL@

@UL@—The national quality standards for education support services for children and young people with visual impairment should carry mandatory status.@/UL@

@UL@—LEAs should play a proactive role in supporting mainstream schools to admit and take responsibility for blind and partially sighted pupils.@/UL@

@UL@—There should be a national career structure for teaching assistants.@/UL@

@UL@—There should be a national training standard for teaching assistants with sufficient funding made available.@/UL@

@UL@—Every blind or partially sighted child should have a statutory entitlement to a mobility assessment and training by a mobility officer qualified to work with children.@/UL@

@UL@—There should be a range of training opportunities for teachers working in the maintained special school sector and available funding to enable them to meet the needs of pupils with complex needs and/or learning difficulties.@/UL@

@UL@—There should be a national strategy for the production of curriculum materials in accessible formats.@/UL@

@UL@—There should be a full review of access arrangements in the light of the extension of the DDA to general qualifications to ensure convergence between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4.@/UL@

@UL@—Examination papers should be made available in a wider range of alternative formats to reflect the range of need of pupils with visual impairments than is currently the case.@/UL@

@UL@—There should be guidelines on the production of statements to ensure clarity and consistency.@/UL@

RNIB Submission to Education and Skills Select Committee on Special Educational Needs

1.Introduction

RNIB is the UK's leading charity offering information, advice and guidance to over two million people with sight problems, with a national Children's Services team concerned with the interests of blind and partially sighted children and young people, including those with additional needs. RNIB is in a strong position to maintain an overview of educational provision for visually impaired pupils around the country. While we broadly welcome the government's strategic approach to education we are conscious that, in order for children and young people with visual impairment to have equal access to high quality educational opportunities, there is still much to be done in order to address some significant weaknesses. We are pleased, therefore, to have this opportunity to submit evidence to the Select Committee on Special Educational Needs and would welcome the opportunity to supplement this information with oral evidence. If members of the Select Committee would like to hear the views of blind or partially sighted pupils RNIB would be happy to provide a CD recording of pupils' accounts of their experiences of school.

The submission begins with background information, which is intended to inform members about the population of children and young people with visual impairment and the context in which they are educated. This is followed by RNIB's policy position on the education of blind and partially sighted pupils. The remainder of the submission is organised around the topic headings identified by the Select Committee.

2.Background

Visual impairment, which includes both blindness and partial sight, is a low incidence impairment. It is estimated that there are around 17,500 children in England between the ages of five and 16 with a visual impairment of sufficient severity to require specialist support. Approximately 50% of the children have a single impairment, 20% have some additional need or needs and 30% have profound or complex needs with associated learning difficulties. Out of all pupils with a visual impairment only around 4% use braille. 59% of blind or partially sighted children are educated in mainstream schools. This number has remained static for a number of years. Pupils attending mainstream schools may attend their local school with support provided by the local authority specialist support service or a school that is specifically resourced for blind and partially sighted pupils where specialist support forms part of the permanent school staffing. Just over three in 10 visually impaired pupils attend maintained special schools for pupils with learning and/or physical disabilities, while only one in 20 attend special schools for pupils who are blind or partially sighted (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003). In the latter, most class or subject teachers will hold an additional qualification in visual impairment. The number of schools that exist specifically for visually impaired children has fallen significantly in recent years as increasing numbers are included in the mainstream. Those that remain are educating pupils with increasingly complex needs.

A number of different factors are involved in a blind or partially sighted pupil's access to the curriculum. These factors are influenced at a micro level by the characteristics of the individual pupil and at a macro level by the organisational context within which educational support is delivered. Pupil characteristics include type, severity and age of onset of the visual impairment, presence or absence of other disabilities and/or learning difficulties, and the pupil's own attitude towards their visual impairment and to their need for additional support and how this is delivered. Organisational factors include the type of setting in which the pupil is educated, and the size and structure, including method of funding, of the LEA VI service.

Depending upon the degree and nature of their visual impairment, a pupil may use non-sighted or sighted methods, or a combination of both, to access the curriculum. Examples of non-sighted methods are braille, audio-tape, and computer with speech software. Sighted methods include enlarged or modified print, low vision devices such as magnifiers and computers with large screen monitor and/or enlarged text on screen. Some environmental adaptations may also be necessary, for example increasing or decreasing the level of illumination in the pupil's work space. The class or subject teacher plays a crucial role in ensuring that the range of strategies or approaches used enable the pupil with visual impairment to be fully included in the class.

3.RNIB's Policy Position on the Education of Blind and Partially Sighted Pupils

RNIB believes that every pupil with a visual impairment is entitled to high quality education with equal access to appropriate specialist provision no matter where he/she lives within the UK. This requires that a range of specialist resources and support arrangements are put in place which match the range and distribution of educational needs amongst the whole population of visually impaired children, including those with additional needs and/or disabilities. For most visually impaired children the appropriate placement is a mainstream school with specialist support. The provision must be of sufficient standard to enable the visually impaired child to access the full range of educational opportunities available to fully sighted children, as well as providing for the particular needs arising from the visual impairment. While well resourced and properly supported mainstream placements should be the usual form of provision, a special school placement continues to be the most effective way of meeting need for some children, in particular those who have severe and complex disabilities in addition to visual impairment. Wherever children are being educated it is essential that schools as well as support services take full responsibility for ensuring that that the child's needs relating to visual impairment are properly addressed. Inclusion is as much about the ethos and social life of schools as it is about access to the taught curriculum. It is essential, therefore, to provide the range of educational and social opportunities that enable children to participate on an equal basis with their peers in order to become fully included members of the community.

Fundamental to achieving these objectives is to fully involve parents and children in decisions about their educational provision.

RNIB believes that the increased delegation of SEN funding to individual schools works against the interests of children with a low incidence disability such as visual impairment. Delegation risks fragmenting central VI services. RNIB supports the retention of centrally funded and managed visual impairment advisory services. This model allows greater flexibility of staffing enabling specialist staff to be deployed where they are most needed and ensures greater job security.

4.Provision for SEN Pupils in Mainstream Schools: Availability of Resources and Expertise; Different Models of Provision

The three key components that together promote the successful inclusion of pupils who are blind and partially sighted are:

@UL@—A coherent system of funding that promotes the organisation of high quality central support services.@/UL@

@UL@—A national set of standards that are universally adopted by local authorities.@/UL@

@UL@—The readiness of mainstream schools to admit and take responsibility for blind and partially sighted children, and the commitment of the LEA in promoting and supporting this.@/UL@

4.1A coherent system of SEN funding

Of particular concern to RNIB is the drive towards greater delegation of SEN funds from central LEA control direct to schools. RNIB considers that this arrangement is inappropriate for low incidence SEN such as sensory impairments, which require a high degree of specialist teaching support and resources and due to economies of scale function better under a centrally organised and funded model. Delegation risks fragmenting central VI service teams. A centrally funded system allows greater flexibility of staffing enabling specialist staff to be deployed where they are most needed and ensures greater job security. (See Gray, 2001; Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2002.)

The main concerns about the consequences of delegation are:

Schools lack the knowledge and expertise to judge what is needed in terms of specialist provision.

Under full delegation schools have the option of buying in support from the local VI service, or to go elsewhere such as to the VI service in the neighbouring LEA. This leads to uncertainty, affects VI service planning and may lead to fragmentation of VI services because of lack of centrally held budget to pay staff salaries. (Fletcher-Campbell and Cullen, 1999; Gray, 2001.)

If schools can choose whether or not to buy in educational support there is a risk that they may go for a cheaper option and purchase less teaching or support time than specialist teachers feel is needed. Pupils without the protection of a statement would be particularly at risk of having their support reduced in this way. (Wakefield and Mackenzie, 2005; Wilkin, Archer, Ridley, Fletcher-Campbell and Kinder, 2005.)

Schools may ignore specialist advisory teacher advice about purchase of specialist equipment and go for a cheaper (and less appropriate) option. (Wakefield and Mackenzie, 2005.)

Where budgets are fully or partially delegated, eg to additionally resourced mainstream schools for pupils with visual impairment and/or special schools within an LEA, no single agency has an overview of the number and characteristics of pupils with visual impairment in that LEA. (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003.)

Where budgets are fully or partially delegated there may be inadequate monitoring of provision of educational support to pupils with visual impairment. (Fletcher-Campbell and Cullen, 1999; Gray, 2001; Audit Commission, 2002; Teachernet, 2003.)

There will be no central source of funding to finance the training of new specialist teachers of pupils with visual impairment. LEAs with delegated SEN (VI) budgets are likely to lack a strategic approach to specialist teacher training and professional development. (Gray, 2001.)

The specialist teacher plays a central role in setting up and supporting the provision for blind and partially sighted pupils (Keil, 2004b). There are concerns that as a result of the combined effects of delegation of central VI service budgets to schools, and the transfer of Standards Fund grants from LEA control to schools, there will no longer be a central source of funding for training of new specialist teachers. Linked to this issue is the concern that LEAs with delegated SEN (VI) budgets will lack a strategic approach to specialist teacher training. For example, instead of anticipating future needs as experienced teachers approach retirement by arranging for advance training of replacement teachers, LEAs may respond only when the need for a replacement actually arises. An RNIB survey of LEA VI services found that in 2002, out of 367 specialist teachers employed by 79 LEAs in England, only 12% were under the age of 40. 45% were aged 50 or over (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003).