Labour Party Review of the implementation of the reformed SEND system

- Response from The Communication Trust

Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) – the context

SLCN is the most common SEN in primary schools and fourth in secondary – giving it the second highest prevalence of any type of SEN[1]. Despite this, under identification remains a significant problem; currently only 2% of all pupils are identified with SLCN as their primary need, clinical prevalence data suggests this should be between 5 – 7%. Around 10% of all children have long term or persistent SLCN. Of these,0.5% - 1% have the most severe and complex SLCN. SLCN is also a feature of a number of other conditions e.g. autism, dyslexia, cerebral palsy.

Attainment figures show that children and young people with SLCN have consistently lower attainment than the average for ‘all pupils with SEN’ – so even in the SEN group, educational outcomes for pupils with SLCN are poor. There are a number of reasons for this including wider curriculum and assessment issues, but a significant issue is a lack of available quality support for children with this particular SEN.

Education Health and Care Plans

  • With ongoing challenges around joint working between health and education services locally, our members highlight concerns around the implementation of the principle that speech and language therapy(SLT) should always be listed in the education section of theplan unless there is an exceptional reason for not doing so. Our members and supporters tell us that in some cases in order to ensure financial contributions from health services, some areas are discussing listing SLT support in the health section of plans, indicating a significant lack of partnership working between education and health partners. This puts children and young people who need SLT to access education at risk.
  • Individual respondents to our survey and some of our Consortium members have highlighted that the threshold for EHC plans has increased, specifically around plans for children and young people with specific language impairment (SLI). There are concerns that pupils who have SLCN as their primary need are less likely to be considered eligible for an EHC plan, and in some cases are discouraged from requesting an assessment. These pupils are therefore placed in the SEN support category, in which there is huge variation in the specialist support available.
  • We know that many practitioners lack the skills they need to meaningfully involve children and young people with SLCN and particularly those with more complex needs effectively.We also know that sometimes practitioners can struggle to access support from specialist services, such as teachers of the deaf or SLTs, either because of capacity issues in their local services or because they are unclear on how to access this support.Feedback provided at the roundtable session suggested there are concerns about the level of involvement of children and young people with the EHCP drafting process and we are particularly concerned about the extent to which this is happening for those with SLCN.

Recommendations

  • The Code of Practice sets out top line principles only for responsibilities for decision-making in joint commissioning arrangements and the health commissioning duty. Further guidance is required to set out clearly the accountability of CCGs and other health partners using illustrative examples, to help ensure the accountability of these partners is unambiguousfor both children and young people with and without EHC plans.Such guidance could also provide useful support for local commissioners in better understanding their responsibilities to those who also access specialist commissioning arrangements (such as some children and young people who use AAC – please see accessing specialist support section for further detail).
  • The Communication Trust produced a practical toolkit to support practitioners to involve children and young people with SLCN in decision making and outcome setting. This review could usefully highlight the existence of this free resource, but beyond this should pay particular attention to any findings around involvement of children and young people that emerge from the local area SEND inspections which are now underway. We would also recommend that this review explore the extent to which practitioners have access to specialist services such as SLTs to support them in engaging children with more complex needs in meaningful decision making opportunities. The principle of involvement is absolutely essential and it must be recognised that non-specialist professionals require support and coaching from specialist professionalsto equip them with the skills required to ensure that engagement with pupils with SLCN is meaningful and not tokenistic;this requires planning and investment.

Variability in the‘Local Offer’

  • The first two reports released from the Ofsted CQC inspections in Bolton and Brighton and Hove both identify support for children and young people in the SEN support category using the local offer as areas of weakness. This finding is backed up by reports from our members and survey findings.
  • Respondents to our survey reported a lack of confidence specifically in accessing services available through the local offer. Our members reinforce this,highlighting that support via the local offer for specific needs such as hearing impairment or stammering, is particularly variable.Our survey suggests that this is having an impact on effective support though the graduated approach; weaknesses were highlighted in partnership working and involving specialists at SEN support category level via the local offer.
  • Feedback from our members, particularly from parent led organisations, suggests that the level of involvement of families and children and young people themselves in the development and review of local offers is variable and that where it does happen, can sometimes rely too heavily on established parent and young person representation groups in which children and young people with SLCN and their families are not always well represented. Additionally, our members have raised concerns that the scrutiny provided by Ofsted and CQC in these inspections can be too generic in its focus. There is a risk that children and young people with SEND are seen as a homogenous group and that specific types of need are not given the recognition required to accurately assess how well a local area is either identifying or meeting the needs of children and young people in the SEN support category.
  • Our members also highlight that finding support for 0 – 2s in local offers is difficult. Information about settings who provide more specialist support for younger children, as well as information about where settings can access external, specialist support is too variable in local offers and often does not support parents to find suitable childcare - 40% of parents of disabled children are not currently accessing the 15 hour entitlement[2].This is potentially indicative of a lack of training and resource available to these settings, via the local offer to improve their practice to support children with SEND.
    Recommendations
  • The findings of the Ofsted and CQC independent inspections could be particularly useful in making an assessment of the quality and variability of local offers nationally. We would expect all of the local area inspections to include a focus on the quality of local offers and it would be very beneficial at interim points in the inspection process, for thematic reports to be drawn up by Ofsted and CQC summarising strengths and weaknesses in what they've observed to ensure improvements can be made at both policy and practice levels on an ongoing basis to support more effective implementation.
  • Specific attention should also be paid to the quality of local offers with regard to the support available for early years settings working with children with SEND. The SEND Code of Practice is clear that all early years providers are required to have arrangements in place to support and identify children with SEND. The support available to these settings must be made clearer in local offers to ensure that all providers are meeting these requirements and that parents feel confident in their local settings’ ability to meet their child’s needs.

Accessing specialist services for pupils with EHCPs and in the SEN Support Category

  • As we have already highlighted, respondents to our surveys highlighted an issue in using the local offer to access specialist services. In addition to this concern, we are aware of cases where specialist support (SLT in these cases) is being restricted only to children and young people with EHC plans. This is totally unacceptable and health and education partners have responsibilities to provide support for all children who require specialist support whether they have a plan or not.
  • The NHS England specialised Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) - commissioning arrangements that are now in place for children with low incidence high cost needs who require technology to communicate are getting underway and significant progress has been made. However, challenges remain around supporting local commissioners to understand their responsibilities to children and young people who do not meet the NHS England eligibility criteria required to access specialised AAC services.
  • We welcome the reiteration of the primacy of class teachers as the professional responsible and accountable for the progress and development of their pupils that the Code of Practice makes very clear. However, we are concerned that as a result of the pressures schools and specialists services are under, the role of specialists in supporting class teachers and other professionals with training, coaching, modelling, collaborative working etc.,is being eroded.

Broader feedback on SEND support category

  • The changes that have been made to how primary need data is recorded as a result of the reformed SEND system have made it impossible to conduct an accurate comparison of pupils identified with ‘SLCN as their primary need’ in 2015 and earlier. From 2015, primary need information is collected for those pupils on SEN support or with a statement of SEN/EHC plan. SEN support includes pupils who were previously at both School Action and School Action Plus. The pre 2015 data collected information on primary need for those at SA+ only, not those in the SA category, meaning that in 2015 there has been a change in cohort. This presents a challenge in monitoring levels of identification of SLCN which is particularly concerning when viewed against a fall overall in the numbers of pupils being identified with SEND, and in the context of the feedback we’re getting about a raising threshold for EHC support.
  • In addition to this issue, data for disability type (not SEN) is not collected at all. Our members at NDCS (who have also submitted a response to this call for evidence) highlight that this means that for groups like deaf children, around 40% are missing from the official SEN statistics.

Recommendations

  • Local commissioners need support and clearer guidance to better understand and undertake their responsibilities to commission AAC provision (communication aid equipment and jointly commissioned services) for children and young people who require it (an estimated 0.5% of the population). Please see our first recommendation in the EHC plan heading for further detail.
  • Specialist support for non-specialist practitioners is essential to ensure there is a strong targeted and universal offer available to all pupils, including those with SEND, even when they’re not accessing specialist services directly. Both schools and specialist services need support to ensure that training, coaching, modelling and collaborative working is a priority to allow this to happen. It is essential that policy makers send clear messages about the importance of this element of specialist service provision to ensure that despite the difficult financial climate, it is clear to commissioners that it is vital for pupils with SEND.
  • There needs to be a detailed review of the data being collected currently on pupils with SEN and disabilities. This must be done both with regard to the changes implemented as a result of the reforms but also crucially include the significant impact changes to assessment and curriculum processes will have on information available about outcomes for these children and young people. It is essential we are able to track against existing figures, the numbers of children and young people in the SEN support category and also the academic achievements of all children with SEND throughout their time in school. There also need to be mechanisms in place for collecting national datasets on children and young people in their earliest years (0-5) and for those in the 18-25 age range, and by specific disability types across all age ranges, to ensure that progress made by allchildren and young people with SEND is captured.

SEND Code of Practice

  • The SEND Code of Practice lacks adequate detail in relation to children in the 0-2 age range and for those in further education settings. Feedback from our members suggests that implementation of the reforms for children and young people at either end of the age range is challenging.Members of our Consortium who run services in the early years and for post 16 settings have reported that very few children in the 0 -2 or 18 – 25 age ranges have EHC plans, despite the extension of the reforms to these groups. This is having an impact on the commissioning of services to support learners with SLCN and other SEND.
  • The practicalities of joint commissioning and joined up working have already been highlighted as difficult and chapter three on joint working has consistently been reported as an area of the Code respondents to our surveys lacked confidence in.Respondents highlight that improvements in joined up working at an individual level are happening, but that there are a barriers preventing this from being effective at a more strategic level. Challenges around getting agreement between health and education partners for funding support from SLT is highlighted specifically by both survey respondents and our members (see recommendation in EHC plan section around improving guidance on accountability for health partners).

Recommendations

  • The Code of Practice sections on the earliest years (0 – 2) and for young people in further education need to be strengthened. This could be achieved by amending the Code itself or by providing additional statutory guidance on these areas. Either way, it is essential that additional detail and practical guidance is available to those working to support children and young people in these age ranges to embed the 0-25 aspect of the reforms and ensure roles and responsibilities are clear.

Provision of SEND in Initial Teacher Training (ITT)

  • As has already been highlighted in our introductory section, SLCN has the second highest prevalence of any type of SEN, 7% of all children have a language disorder[3]. It is also a feature associated with many other types of SEND. It is therefore essential that all teachers begin their career with a solid grounding in SLCN. However, as the Carter Review highlighted explicitly, currently ITT provision is varied and lacking in information around supporting pupils with SEND and SLCN specifically.
  • We ran a survey with the children and young people’s workforce between June and July 2016 to gain an insight into the opportunities and challenges of access to professional development support around speech, language and communication. Over 1,200 respondents took the survey and 59% reported having little or no initial training in identifying and supporting children with SLCN.

Recommendations

  • ITT must include high quality information and training around children and young people's speech, language and communication skills, providing a range of effective universal strategies for whole class teaching that is inclusive and effective for all pupils. It must also however include specific information about supporting those with SLCN and wider SEND specifically. We welcome the recently published framework of core content for ITT which recognises the importance of equipping new teachers to be able to use teaching strategies suitable for pupils with SEND, including SLCN. This framework must be made mandatory and the Government held accountable for ensuring that at the very least, the minimum standards set out in the framework are upheldby all ITT providers, with an expectation that many will exceed the minimum standards. In addition, the introduction of an ITT special educational needs bill, which we understand Lord Addington is currently progressing, must continue and should be actively supported and shaped by members of this review.
  • Ensure that all ITT programmes include information and practical support for a range of SEND and SLCN, as well as provide a firm understanding of the role speech, language and communication skills play in all wider learning and social development
    For further information in anything raised in this submission please contact Octavia Holland, Director, The Communication Trust –

Appendix