Routes for Learning: professionals’ implementation of the approach in supporting children with profound and multiple learning difficulties

Heidi McDermott and Cathy Atkinson

Introduction

This article is a summary of some of the findings of a doctoral thesis which aimed to investigate how the Routes for Learning (RfL) approach was implemented by professionals working with children and young people with profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD). Given the dearth of published research regarding the implementation or effectiveness of RfL,this research began to address this by investigating howand whyRfL materials were used in practice and how this related to the RfL guidance.

Traditional assessment of children and young people with PMLD

In the past,much assessment in schools for children with special educational needsand disabilities (SEND)has been based on,or derived from, the P scales (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority(QCA), 2009), which were designedto meet statutory assessment and reporting requirements, regardingthe progress of children working below the standard ofnational curriculum tests. Donnelly (2005) described how this practice developed despite the fact that P scales were not designed to support short-term judgements on individual targets or pieces of work. Since 2016, theEnglish curriculum has defined ‘expected progress’ rather than levels (Department for Education (DfE), 2016), but an independent review (Rochford, 2015) proposed that as an interim arrangement, P-levels were to remain in use for statutory assessment and reporting for the 2015-2016 academic year.Ndaji and Tymms (2009) contended that the use of P scales meant more attention was given to teaching specific areas (e.g. national curriculum priorities) which were potentiallyassessedat the expense of other relevant areas. Donnelly (2005) expressed concerns that this approach meant that highly significant learning, including contingency awareness or improvement of sensory function,were seen as less importantthan attempting to measure ‘experiences’ loosely linked to curriculum subjects which were unlikely to move learners on. Martin (2006) outlined difficultiesassessing students with PMLD using the P scales, arguing that they are not fine-grained enough to measure progress over a year and are more suitable to show progress over longer periods like a key stage.

Otherassessment tools are also linear or hierarchical (for example B-Squared (2012) or PIVATS (Performance Indicators for Value Added Target Setting)(Lancashire County Council, 2012), based on theassumption that children with SEND progress in the same way as typically developing children. They do not measure the very subtle changes demonstrated by learners with PMLD. For example, lateral progress may bedemonstrated through increased awareness and a greater range of responses,for example using different sensory modalities, leading to a higher level of engagement and participation, arguably an equally valid measure of improvement. Additionally, some pupils may reach a plateau in their learning or lose skills as a result of a deteriorating medical condition and under these circumstances, theQualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA) (2011) recommended that it may be more appropriate to recognise and report on the consolidation or maintenance of skills.

The potential contribution of Routes for Learning

RfL (Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), 2006) is a pack of informational and assessment materials produced in Wales by a working group of teachers, supported by researchers. It was developed on the premise that children with PMLD oftenfollow differing developmental pathways to those of typically developing children; something that other assessment instruments do not necessarily make allowances for. RfLwastherefore designed to support both lateral and hierarchical progress. It was not intended to be used as a checklist or to design a curriculum, rather tosupport consolidation of existing skills, as well as track and limit regression.

RfL is designed to be used with students from 0-19 years old. It focuses on the early communication, social interaction and cognitive skills that are crucial to future learning, leading through key milestones from 'notices stimuli’ through‘responds consistently to one stimulus’, ‘contingency responding’, 'contingency awareness', 'object permanence', and ‘selects from two or more items’ to 'initiates actions to achieve desired result' (please refer to the Routes for Learning Additional Guidance and Assessment booklets (WAG, 2006) for further information). Donnelly (2005) described how RfL emphasises the need for close relationships and how communication should be assessed, taking into account the role of the communication partner. There is a clear focus on the learner and their abilities and also an understanding of the impact of the learning environment on the learner.

The RfL assessment gives a ‘Routemap’ with seven main milestones of development through which all learners pass if they progress, as well as 36 others which learners may achieve. The Routemap promotes close observation of sensory function, preferred learning channels and means of processing information. Readers may wish to refer to the Routemap, which is available at

RfL accepts that learners may not pass through learningstages sequentially and may demonstrate learning in a more advanced area whilst omitting earlier phases; and shows a range of learning pathways to accommodate the complex needs of learners with PMLD. This means that assessment can be more accurate and consistent and give a fuller picture of the learner and their learning process.

Using RfL in schools: two case studies

Methodology

This research project took an exploratory case study approach in two special school settings within a large North West local authority. The research aimed to investigate the use of RfL by professionals in each school and explore the facilitators and barriers to RfL implementation.

School information

School A was a relatively large special school for children and young people aged 11-19. PMLD students were taught in mixed ability classes. RfL assessment activities were used by teaching assistants on a day to day basis with identified pupils,both within class and as part of withdrawal sessions. The school’s speech and language therapist played an important role in the school in terms of using RfL to make assessments, in modelling assessments as part of training and by offering ongoing support to staff members in the use of RfL.

School Bwas a smaller special school for children aged 2-19. Pupils with PMLD were taught in mixed ability classes. RfL assessment activities took place during regular individual and small group withdrawal sessions with PractitionerB, a teacher who specialised in the use of RfL. The withdrawal sessions were also used to model and share use of the RfL materials with class based members of staff, who used these activities with the same children and young people within class.

Participant information

A summary of information about participants from both schools is given in Table 1, below.

Table 1: Participant information

School A / Manager A / Practitioner A
  • Class teacher
  • Lead for RfL
  • Co-ordinator for sensory integration
  • Brief training in sensory integration
/
  • Teaching assistant
  • Classroom based
  • On the job training in RfL
  • 2 years’ experience with RfL

School B / Manager B / Practitioner B
  • Deputy Head Teacher
  • Responsibility for RfL and assessment
  • Formal training in Quest for Learning
/
  • Teacher
  • Not classroom based
  • Formal training in RfL
  • Model and train school staff
  • 8 years’ experience with RfL

Data gathering and analysis

In each setting a practitioner using RfL and a manager with leadership responsibility for assessment and/or RfL took part in separate semi-structured interviews which were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Observations were also made of school staff using RfL in practice and recorded using a running record.

Ethical consent to carry out the research was given by the University of Manchester Ethics Board.

Findings

Five key overall organisingthemes and contributing subthemes were identified using thematic analysis of semi-structuredinterviews. Theseare shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Organising and basic themes

A brief description of each of the organising themes is given below, together with examples of interviewee comments.

Whole school issues

The majority of data relating to ‘whole school issues’ originated from School B. This was partly becauserestructuring of provision for pupils with PMLD was underway at the time of the research. This included changes to the organisation of classes and affected all pupils and teachers. Consequently, a lot of data related tothe advantages and disadvantages of the new and previous structures.

The restructure had presented some challenges with regard to the delivery of RfL in classes, for example:“It’s very different how you deliver the curriculum for those students than you would for other students who are higher on the P levels.”(Manager B)

However, the placement of pupils with PMLD into mixed classes had also had benefits, for example, Manager B said,“I think it’s been quite good in terms of educating the other staff.”

In contrast themes from School A centred on organisation and whole school systems, linked to recording and the management of specialist support.

Peopleissues

‘People issues’ was largely made up of themes related to staff training and learning. This incorporated views about individual personalities or attitudes to change but also attitudes towards working with pupils with PMLD and using the RfL materials. Both schools had providedopportunities for staff to receive in-house training on RfL in the form of staff-ledtraining sessions, modelling theuse of RfL materials and offering the option of co-working. School A staff had not received specific training in RfL and were basing their practice on guidance within theRfL published materials whereas, both participants from School B had received training from either the RfL, or the authors of Quest for Learning,another assessment based on RfL (Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), 2007).

Practitioner A found RfLtraining from the speech and language therapist valuable in accomplishing her role in the day-to-day implementation of RfL and supportivewhen she encountered problems ordifficulties:

I have found it really useful and I’m a lot more confident with it now. If I’m not a hundred percent certain I will ask the speech therapist if I am struggling with it and again if I do struggle with it and I do find that I don’t know if, like with [pupil’s name], I don’t know if she can do it I would ask the speech therapist to maybe come and assess it with me.

Manager B discussed Practitioner B’s role in supporting the learning of other staff about both RfL and other aspects of working with children and young people with PMLD and stated:

So it’s given the students and teachers an opportunity to kind of learn about Routes for Learning…and how you can adapt a curriculum, how you can provide sensory materials that provide relevant opportunities for our students and demonstrate progression.

The attitudes of staff towards RfL and having an understanding of how it supported their teaching role were also seen as key facilitators by Practitioner B who said, “Having willing staff, basically, because unless you’ve got somebody who actually wants to do it and sees the benefit doing it, and actually realises that to be fair, this Routes for Learning make their job an awful lot easier.”

Practical issues

Practical issues expressed by practitionersusing RfL on a day to day basis were linked to time, equipment and space. Practitioners from both schools discussed the need for sufficient time to conduct RfL assessments effectively. Staff in School A raised the needfor an appropriate space to carry out RfL work and how different spaces might be more suitable for different situations or students. Finally equipment was a facilitator for School B where there was a dedicated store of communication aids, which included access to a new iPad. In School A equipment issues were more related to having sufficient time to gather relevant resources.

Time was seen as both a facilitator and a barrier by Practitioner A who remarked, “Manager A often gives me time to sit with the child and do Routes for Learning and take them out and work with [the speech therapist] at the same time” but also said, “I haven’t had that much time to sit down and have a look properly through Routes for Learning materials you know or look on the Internet or anything.”

RfL in practice

Interviewees from both schools discussed how RfL assessments were recorded and reported. Manager A found that there was repetition and overlap between the recording systems of different assessments used within the school. Manager A commented that “It’s copying the same data sometimes can be a bit annoying and things like that but it is individualised and you choose what suits you.”

RfL assessments were shared with parents through Individual Education Plan (IEP) meetings and Annual Reviews. Interviewees from School B gave descriptions of RfL, which were more detailed, perhaps due to more extensive experience both with pupils with PMLD and RfL, access to external training and greater expertise. Practitioner B felt able to adapt the RfL materials in response to the needs of individual students,proposing that some Routes were more challenging than others in terms of their level of difficulty or the length of time they took to achieve and therefore needed to be broken down further. Practitioner B remarked:

Some of the Routes are a little bit difficult for them to grasp, as in it takes forever and a day and I’m talking months if not years, and that’s not fair… so what I’ve done is I’ve also taken some of the Routes that are a little bit more intensive and I’ve broken them down again.

In contrast,Manager A said that despite staff finding it difficult to understand some of the concepts or terminology of RfL, she did not feel that it would be appropriate to adapt the materials to accommodate this due to potentially compromising the integrity of the assessment. School A staff used a combination of assessments for PMLD students whereas School B focused mainly on RfL.

Rationale for using RfL

Interviewees from both schools offered a range of benefits of the use of RfL for all stakeholders,including the pupils themselves, parents and school staff. It was felt that RfL was uniquely appropriate for use with students with PMLD and that RfL was used throughout the school day in both the formal and informal curriculum as it reflected the learning, developmental and assessment needs for these pupils. A clear perceived benefit of RfL for School B was that the small steps of progress made by pupils with PMLD could be tracked and shown clearly. Manager B stated:

With something like Routes for Learning you can actually show and demonstrate in a visual way as well that they’ve actually made small steps, but very significant steps for those children, relevant steps as well, it’s important very relevant steps.

Practitioner A discussed the impact of RfL on how pupils with PMLD are viewed, understood and supported by staff members within the school and how her understanding of the abilities of this group of students had changed as a result of using RfL. She remarked:

It gave me an insight into the children that I didn’t know and that I thought actually can’t do that … but when I sat with the speech therapist and did some work on a one to one with a child and the speech therapist and she explained it as we went along it was actually yes, she can do that or yeah you can do that or you know it give me a different outlook on… the lower end of the children, you know the more severe children.

Key outcomes of the research

Benefits for children and young people

Small scale research from this project suggests that RFL:

  • Supports the progress of pupils with PMLD and how this can be assessed, demonstrated and shared with others and how next steps can be made
  • Encourages a focused and evidence based approach by families and professionals
  • Emphasises the importance of children having a relationship with adults who are attuned to their communication and other needs to maximise learning opportunities
  • Enables focused intervention and learning relevant to students’ development
  • Enables pupils needs are identified and met, to be included and to have their communication ‘heard’
  • Supports the use of a team approach to enable a shared understanding of how a child thinks, feels, responds and learns, their preferences and dislikes
  • Enables progress to be seen more effectively and therefore staff members have a more confident and enthusiastic approach with children which may impact on the staff and pupil motivation
  • Allowsprogress to be recognised and celebrated, which may promote pupil engagement

Factorsregarding implementation of RfL for special schools and teaching staff