RNIB/Action for Blind People response to Support and Aspiration: a new approach to special educational needs and disability

Introduction

As the largest organisation of blind and partially sighted people in the UK, RNIB/Action for Blind People is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this consultation on the SEND Green Paper. This response has been informed by the views of parents and professionals who attended a series of national consultation events.

RNIB is a membership organisation with over 10,000 members who are blind or partially sighted, or the friends and family of people with sight loss. 80 per cent of our Trustees and Assembly Members are blind or partially sighted. We encourage members to be involved in our work and regularly consult with them on government policy and their ideas for change..

As a campaigning organisation of blind and partially sighted people, RNIB fights for the rights of people with sight loss in each of the UK’s countries.

During the next five years we want to tackle the isolation of sight loss by focusing on three clear priorities:

  1. Stopping people losing their sight unnecessarily;
  2. Supporting blind and partially sighted people to live independent lives; and
  3. Creating a society that is inclusive of blind and partially sighted people.

RNIB provides a strong national lead within visual impairment education, underpinning improvements in inclusive education through research, policy work, training and support forspecialist professional networks.

Action for Blind People (Action) is a national charity with local reach, providing practical help and support to blind and partially sighted people of all ages. We are part of RNIB Group, bringing together a unique combination of complementary strengths and expertise to deliver services in line with the UK Vision Strategy. Action has a strong network of User Participation groups based across England which influence our regional and national service delivery.

Action works directly with people with visual impairment. In 2010 Action provided information and support to over 3500 children and young people (CYP) ) with visual impairment (VI) and their families as well as providing a wide range of activities and clubs to support achievement through the development of self confidence and independence. Action’s services have been designed with the support of families and CYP to ensure we are providing services that are not already available to them.

RNIB/Action's concerns

We welcome the recognition that special educational needs and disability (SEND) is a complex area and we value the opportunity to engage in discussions around improving the processes and outcomes of future provision. However, we have serious concerns about the model proposed in the Green Paper and believe it may have unintended negative consequences for blind and partially sighted CYP:

  1. It is based on assumptions about large populations of CYP with more generic SEND such as learning and behaviour difficulties. CYP with VI are a low incidence group with a wide range of high level medical and learning needs which require ongoing specialist services.
  1. There is a lack of clarity about which CYP will be eligible for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We are concerned that the broad definition of complex needs given in the Green Paper could leave some CYP who have severe sight loss as a single disability without statutory protection. There is also an assumption that the plan equates to the current statement, but LA policy on issuing statements varies considerably; consequently statements cannot be taken as an accurate reflection of needs (Florian, Rouse, Black-Hawkins & Jull, 2004; Farrell, 2001).
  1. There is a lack of clarity about provision for CYP who are not covered by an EHC Plan. We are concerned at the suggestion that schools are in a position to make informed decisions about the nature and level of support that is required for such pupils. Many of the problems faced by pupils who are blind or partially sighted occur at school level. Reasons include a lack of understanding by teachers of the effects of a visual impairment (Franklin, Keil, Crofts and Cole-Hamilton, 2001), poor planning by teachers (Keil, Parris, Cobb, Edwards and McAllister, 2006) and an inability of schools to fully meet children's specialist VI needs (Miller, Keil and Whitehead, 2008).
  1. We believe the concept of a local offer needs to be revisited so that families can be assured of a consistency of provision wherever they live. At present there is considerable variability between LAs in levels of educational provision for pupils with VI and thresholds for receiving support from VI services. This discrepancy is increasing and there is continued uncertainty about future staffing and funding in a number of VI services across the country (Keil and Cobb, 2010, 2011).
  1. We do not see sufficient recognition in the proposals of the need to maintain a framework of specialist services for low incidence groups such as CYP with VI. There is very little reference to the role of LA specialist services, which are crucial in ensuring that CYP with VI receive appropriate provision which enables them to maximise their educational potential. To be effective, the new structure must make best use of the high level skills in which a qualified teacher in vision impairment (QTVI) has been trained.

Understanding the population of children and young people with visual impairment

In order to design effective services for CYP with VI it is necessary to understand the complexity of the population:

  • An estimated two children per 1,000 of the population up to the age of 16 have a visual impairment of sufficient severity to require specialist educational support.
  • Within this low incidence population there is extensive diversity. At least 50% have additional disabilities and/or special educational needs, and many children experience high levels of need.
  • There is considerable individual variation in the way that children function with the same eye condition and similar levels of vision, depending on other factors such as the existence of additional SEN.
  • Severe visual impairment or blindness can substantially delay early childhood development and learning, with some children following an atypical developmental pathway.
  • The potential effect of even a relatively moderate visual impairment is significant, especially in combination with other low level needs.

Why there is a need for specialist support

Visual impairment creates unique challenges to learning which can only be addressed by specialist knowledge and understanding. If babies with a visual impairment are not identified early and intensive health and education developmental support provided in the first two years of life, the development of their social and communication skills can be seriously impeded (Dale and Sonksen 2002).

Blind children, in particular, require high levels of specialist input to address crucial needs in their cognitive development, communication, social and independence skills (Perez-Pereira and Comti-Ramsden, 1999). The nature of this input will vary according to the needs and skills of each individual child, the nature of their setting and many other factors.

There is considerable evidence of a very high prevalence of blindness and partial sight in children with learning difficulties, particularly those with SLD and PMLD (Emerson and Robertson, 2011; Warburg, 2001; Sandfield Nielson et al, 2007). Specialist skills are required to effectively support CYP with complex needs and visual impairment.

Services which CYP with VI typically require include the following:

  • Regular input from a qualified teacher of pupils with VI (QTVI), both for direct teaching of specialist skills (such as learning to read and write through braille)and for advisory work
  • provision of equipment
  • adult support (including use of a trained TA)
  • ongoing adaptation of resources
  • consistent funding for low vision assessments and prescription of aids
  • mobility training and independence skills, including daily living activities
  • support for social and emotional development.

The combination of low incidence and high need can make decisions about placement particularly challenging. Whatever school or setting they attend, it is essential that the needs of children with visual impairment are reflected in terms of appropriate staff training, curriculum access and physical environment. Particular attention needs to be paid to ensuring that children are able to participate in the wider aspects of learning and enjoy full social as well as educational inclusion.

In order to address these needs, RNIB maintains that all children and young people with visual impairment require specialist assessment and support from a QTVI who holds the mandatory qualification (MQ) in visual impairment in addition to qualified teacher status.

RNIB/Action's response to specific aspects of the Green Paper

1. Single assessment process and EHC Plan

We welcome in principle the government's plans to simplify the current assessment process by replacing the statement of SEN with an Education, Health and Care Plan. However, the proposals leave many questions unanswered about how this will work in practice.

RNIB/Action's view

Eligibility. There is an urgent need to clarify who would be eligible for the EHC Plan. We maintain that all CYP who are eligible for medical certification as sight impaired should receive a multi-agency assessment to identify the extent of their needs. In particular, every blind child requires a planned approach and documented support entitlement because of the specialist nature of their needs, even if multiple agencies are not involved. (Please see also our response below to the local offer - our recommendation about eligibility for medical certification being the criterion for the single assessment process is conditional on greater clarity about the support available to CYP who do not meet this criterion.)

Involvement. It is imperative that there is a statutory duty on all agencies to participate in and fund the process and the resulting Education, Health and Care Plan. The multi-agency assessment must also include input from professionals who have specialist knowledge of visual impairment. We maintain thatthe person best placed to co-ordinate and manage the process should be the local authority QTVI. CYP themselves should also be encouraged and supported to contribute to the process and take ownership of their provision in a graduated approach that is appropriate to their age and needs. This may often require the involvement of a skilled advocate.

Timing. The quality of initial assessment is key to effective provision and we are concerned that too much emphasis on speed may put quality at risk.Assessment should be ongoing to reflect changing visual needs, such as a deteriorating condition or a change in educational context. We would also emphasise the importance of retaining a 'fast track' approach for those children identified at birth with a medical diagnosis of VI or who lose their sight suddenly so that their immediate needs can be met promptly. The single assessment process should never get in the way of prompt referral to a QTVI.

Process.It is essential that the government supports the necessary reforms with investment so that closer working between professionals is made possible. The single assessment plan will only work if its contributors are well informed and the process is properly co-ordinated.

2. Local offer

The proposals in the Green Paper assume that all CYP who are not covered by the EHC Plan can have their needs identified at school level and that schools are capable of deciding what services they need to meet these. The emphasis on local authorities publishing a local offer also suggests that it may be appropriate for provision to vary from one area to another.

RNIB/Action's view

A national offer. The concept of a local offer makes no sense in the context of a low incidence disability such as visual impairment where core services need to be available to meet a range of needs. We believe that central government should reinforce the entitlement of CYP to these services through a guaranteed national offer. This national offer should be based on clear recognised criteria such as the existing quality standards for pupils withvisual impairment, eligibility for medical certification or the International Classification of Functioning. It should not undermine the entitlement of every child or young person to universal free education and health care. Settings should still have to fulfil their legal duties, such as those detailed in the Equality Act.

Enforcement. For the local/national offer to be meaningful it needs to have contractual status and not be for information only. We know that many CYP who currently do not have a statement have specialist needs which schools are unable to identify and meet on their own. DfE's own statistics show that 57% of pupils whose primary SEN is VI are on SAP (DfE, 2010).There needs to be a mechanism that guarantees the entitlement of these CYP to the ongoing support of a QTVI.

Choice of schools. The requirement for local authorities to provide information on schools should be extended beyond state-funded schools to the independent and non-maintained sector. VI specialist schools and colleges in this sector are part of the continuum of provision that - considered as a whole - provide an incremental approach to meeting the needs of the range of children who may have a VI, including those with the most complex additional health, independence and communication difficulties. For a small number of learners, these placementsshould be the first and right choice, not the last resort when other options have failed.

Personal budgets. We do not believe that personal budgets should be used to fund core aspects of provision. These elements should be jointly funded by contributing agencies with a duty to do so and should not be included in an optional personal budget. The core package of support should be provided across home and school so that resources are available in both settings. Personal budgets would be best used for additional services such as short break and holiday activities where parents could exercise genuine discretion over the support that they most needed.

Minimum requirements. In accordance with the principles of inclusive/universal design enshrined in the Disability Equality Duty, there should be a minimum requirement placed on all schools to outline the general access entitlement for CYP and their parents. This should include the provision of all printed materials in line with RNIB's Clear Print guidelines and a commitment to meet environmental audit standards.

3. Role of the Local Authority

The SEND Green Paper sets out a clear expectation that local authorities should maintain and strengthen their role in securing effective provision for children with SEN and disabilities. It makes a welcome reference to the importance of specialist support services, commenting that 'where schools are able to draw on the advice and guidance provided by specialist support services, this can make a powerful difference to a child's progress and their happiness in schools' (para 5.30). However, there is little indication as to how local authorities should carry out their role and we are mindful that these proposals are being put forward at a time of major financial cuts to local authority budgets and increasing delegation to schools. RNIB has evidence that visual impairment services are already suffering staffing cuts and there is a danger that these proposals could inadvertently accelerate that process.

RNIB/Action's view

The Green Paper sets out three key elements in the future role of local authorities:

1.Strategic planning that meets the needs of local communities.

The wide range of needs encompassed by this group of children means that strategic planning of services has to be based not just on detailed knowledge of the children already known to the local authority. Sufficient capacitymust also bebuilt in to enable staff to respond swiftlyto new referrals including children losing their sight adventitiously or CYP with a severe visual impairment moving into the area. For example, educationally blind children learning through non-sighted means will need intensive input from a QTVI to develop their conceptual understanding as well as teaching them to read and write through braille. Maintaining a strategic overview of the wider population of CYP with VI is an important factor in being able to plan effective local services in the medium and longer term.

2. Securing a range of high quality provision.

Specialist services are essential to assess how individual children may be affected by their visual impairment and to design appropriate strategies accordingly. RNIB maintainsthat this support must be provided by a qualified teacher who holds the mandatory qualification in visual impairment. Trained support is also needed to enable children to become proficient in specialist areas such as braille, mobility and independence skills, all of which are central not only to their educational success but also to their longer term life chances. The role of a successful VI support service is therefore multi-faceted and extends well beyond the classroom.