25 minute read
Point of view
Point of view: my school career
Photo: RNIB
People with Vision Impairment deserve equality in education
Conrad Will
As a child with vision impairment (VI) in mainstream education, I was lucky to have gone to schools which did their utmost to meet my needs. I also had unwavering support from my family. But even then, the reality was that the outlook for children with VI was mixed at best.
I fear that for many children and young people today, their circumstances may not be so fortunate unless urgent changes are made.
I am one of over 30,000 people aged 0-25 with a vision impairment in England. We require specialist support to learn on equal terms with sighted children, enabling us to develop the skills we need to succeed at school, live independently as adults and enter employment.
Yet as we take stock of the pandemic’s impact on education, new research from the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) shows a worrying trend of children and young people with VI being let down.
In the past year alone, a third of local authorities in England have seen their budgets for specialist VI education services cut – at a time where specialist provision for high need, low incidence disabilities, like VI, could not be more important.
“My school had never had a VI student before”
Sadly, the deterioration of support for children with vision impairment is not a new development, despite the present backdrop of the wider education sector being under unprecedented strain. In the past four years, over half of local authorities have had their VI service budgets cut at least once, with over three quarters having their budgets frozen or cut.
I am sure that I would not have got into Oxford University, nor gone on to work in Parliament, were I not able to participate in mainstream education. It is vital that children with vision impairment can, wherever possible, learn alongside their sighted peers. There are numerous social justifications for this, in
“Local Authorities shouldn’t be in this position”
addition to the obvious benefits of having equitable access to the same academic environments that other children do.
But delivering this is a huge challenge. A key metric of the standard of support is the number of Qualified Teachers of Children with a Visual Impairment (QTVIs) in any given local authority.
QTVIs play a central role in supporting VI children: working peripatetically, they perform assessments and define the resources, adaptations and support that should be made to enable access to learning. They can also provide direct teaching of specific subjects and skills.
Even with the best will in the world, mainstream schools and teachers need constant guidance and support from QTVIs. At primary school, on advice from a QTVI, I was given invaluable habilitation training which sought to maximise my independence and confidence. Without it, I would have struggled to navigate my way round school and feel part of its community.
With secondary school came many new challenges – not least public exams. My school had never had a VI student before. I was given the standard allocation of extra time for exams right up until the year before my GCSEs, when a QTVI stepped in to insist I was given additional time and rest breaks to take the strain off my eyes. I’m not confident I would have coped without those arrangements.
Alarmingly, RNIB’s research shows that QTVIs are in short supply. Nearly two thirds of local authorities have reported a decrease or freeze in their numbers, despite rising caseloads. This could affect nearly 20,000 children and young people, meaning they are lacking vital support and being left behind in their learning and inclusion at school, with untold knock-on effects for their prospects and integration into society.
Compounding this unfairness is the fact that provision varies so widely across England. Different local authorities use different systems to determine the level of support a child can receive. In some authorities, a child may need to have a specific level of sight impairment to qualify for support, while in others, need can be determined by whether they are failing to meet the expected standard of progress for their age.
The result is a patchwork of provision in which children and young people are not always getting the support they are entitled to.
About the author
Conrad Will is a Public Affairs Officer at the Royal National Institute of Blind People. He previously worked in both the House of Commons and House of Lords after graduating from the University of Oxford with a BA in History and Politics. He has oculocutaneous albinism, meaning he is registered blind and has distinctively fair hair, skin, and eyes.
Photo: RNIB
The Government’s recently released SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Review presents an important opportunity for the Government to address this dire situation and ensure every child with vision impairment is able to fulfil their potential.
At the very least, the SEND Review must level the playing field so that all local authorities work to a common framework of allocating support so that a child in Stockport can expect the same standards of provision as one in Southsea.
In truth, it should go much further. Local authorities’ hands are tied by ever-evaporating funding pots and difficult choices are having to be made. They shouldn’t be in this position.
They should expect adequate and protected funding to deliver specialist education services which can consistently meet the needs of VI children and young people. This can only come from central government.
With the right central support, local authorities can begin to take action to boost the numbers of QTVIs and other key professionals such as Qualified Habilitation Specialists.
I was lucky at school. I got the support I needed because specialist interventions were made at the right time and my parents had the capacity to ensure that nothing slipped through the cracks. It could so easily have gone the other way and I fear it will for so many children today without urgent change.
Has this article inspired you or given you pause for thought?
Your ideas and comments would be welcome. Email editor@senmagazine.co.uk
The SEND Review
Douglas Silas looks at the Government’s current SEND Review.
The Review has been generally warmly received by Local Authorities, but some parent organisations have expressed criticism that it does not make local decision makers more accountable for their decisions, and that it may limit parental rights.
What is the SEND Review?
The SEND Review was finally issued at the end of March 2022. It is properly titled ‘SEND Review: right support, right place, right time’ and opens a consultation on new ‘ambitious’ proposals to deliver greater national consistency in support, access and funding for children and young people with SEND, through an ‘inclusive system’ focusing on improved mainstream provision, improved accountability and improved data collection.
It is hoped that a new SEND system will now resolve inequalities, avoid the need to ‘ration’ services and build parents’ and carers’ confidence. The aim is to make things more ‘joinedup’ again and once more embrace the idea that ‘every teacher is a teacher of SEND’, creating a culture of inclusion and a whole-school approach.
The Review states that it is the Government’s intention to also ‘level up’ opportunities for children and young people with SEND, as with every other child. Their ambition is to turn
“Poor outcomes for children, young people and their families.”
hopes into reality and help the currently 1.4 million school-age children and young people with SEND, representing nearly 16% of all pupils, to bridge the gap between themselves and their peers without SEND.
It also talks about the need to improve parental confidence in the system, and it says that the 2014 SEND reforms (through the Children and Families Act 2014) had the right aspirations but, despite examples of good practice, resulted too often in poor experiences and outcomes for children, young people and their families.
The Review kicks off a consultation process which ends on 22nd July 2022. Aside from asking for written contributions, there are also a series of live events to gain additional views and contributions.
What does the SEND Review conclude?
The Government highlights again that parents and carers are frustrated at having an increasingly complex and adversarial system and that growing tension is causing delays across the system in accessing support, and increasing financial challenges for local government.
The Review also refers to a vicious circle of late intervention, low competence and inefficient resource allocation, and it points to significant inconsistencies in how needs are met based on where children and young people live or are educated, rather than on their needs.
The Review says that it has identified three key challenges facing the SEND and Alternative Provision (AP) system:
1. Navigating the SEND/AP system is not a positive experience for too many children, young people and their families;
2. Outcomes for children and young people with SEND/AP are consistently worse than their peers across every measure;
3. Despite continuing and unprecedented investment, the
SEND system is not financially sustainable.
The Review recognises that sometimes the only means of guaranteeing rights and support is by obtaining an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), but it points out how the
About the author
Specialist SEN solicitor Douglas Silas is the Managing Director of Douglas Silas Solicitors.
SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk
@douglassilas @douglassilas
“Parents and carers are frustrated at the increasingly complex and adversarial system.”
increasing number of EHCPs and specialist provision mean that children and young people face significant delays in accessing support, including those with more complex needs having to attend schools or placements outside of their local area and community.
Finally, it stresses that financial resource and workforce capacity is poor at the specialist end of the system and that there is less available to mainstream settings, in terms of early intervention and timely support, resulting in this vicious circle.
So what is the Government going to do?
The Government says that it wants to turn this vicious circle into a virtuous one, where the vast majority of children and young people with SEND should be able to ‘thrive’ in local mainstream settings, without bureaucratic processes, and without the need for an EHCP or placement in special or alternative provision.
The Review acknowledges that special provision may be the most appropriate placement for some children and young people with SEND, but says that they should be able to access this with minimal bureaucracy.
The Review is really focusing now on trying to set up a single national SEND/AP system, with more consistency across every stage of a child’s or young person’s journey across education, health and care, so that parents and carers will be more confident that their child’s needs will be met in a local setting.
It also intends to introduce a standardised and digitised EHCP process and template to minimise bureaucracy, develop consistency, and to streamline the redress process to make
it easier to resolve disputes earlier, including mandatory mediation, with SEND Tribunal appeals now only for the most challenging cases.
How does it propose to do this?
The Government says that it will: • Introduce a reformed and integrated role for alternative provision • Increase the total investment in the schools’ budget, with an additional £1 billion in 2022 to 2023 to support children and young people with the most complex needs • Improve mainstream provision, through teacher training and development, and a ‘what works’ evidence programme to identify and share best practice including in early intervention • Build expertise and leadership, through a new SENCo national professional qualification (NPQ) for school
SENCos, and increase the number of staff with an accredited SENCo qualification in early years settings • Invest £2.6 billion over the next three years, to deliver new places and improve existing provision for children and young people with SEND or who require Alternative
Provision.
• Deliver new special and AP free schools, in addition to 60 already in the pipeline • Set out a clear timeline, so that by 2030 all children and young people with SEND will benefit from being taught in a family of schools, including special and alternative provision, by sharing expertise and resources to improve outcomes
• Commission analysis to better understand the support that children and young people with SEND need from health
• Fund more than 10,000 additional respite placements and invest £82 million in a network of family hubs so more children, young people and their families can access wraparound support • Invest £18 million, over the next three years, in the supported internships programme • Improve transition at further education, including piloting adjustment passports The Review also proposes to: • Make AP an integral part of local SEND systems focused on early intervention • Give AP schools funding stability focused on early intervention, by requiring local authorities (LAs) to create and distribute an AP specific budget • Develop a performance framework for AP with robust standards on progress, re-integration into mainstream or sustainable post-16 destinations • Deliver greater oversight and transparency on children and young people’s movements in and out of AP • Launch a call for evidence on the use of unregistered provision and investigate existing practice • Reform roles, accountabilities and funding • Align incentives and accountabilities to reduce perverse behaviours that drive poor outcomes and high costs in the current system • Clarify roles and responsibilities across education, health, care and local government by means of new national standards and accountabilities
• Introduce a new inclusion dashboard for 0 to 25 provision giving a timely, transparent picture of how the system is performing at a local and national level across education, health and care • Work with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission on an updated local area SEND inspection framework with a focus on SEND and AP
“The 2014 reforms were not sufficiently funded”
How has it been received so far?
Many organisations have already spoken about the Review. One has called it a ‘pivotal moment’ but also says the ambitions need to become a reality and make a real difference.
Some also talk about the ‘fragility’ of the current system for years which has been pushed back even further by a long and brutal pandemic that has had a major impact on the mental health of children and young people, including increased absences and a tired, overworked and disenfranchised workforce.
There have also been a number of criticisms. The main criticism from parent organisations seems to be that, rather than focusing on improving the 2014 SEND reforms and addressing the failure to make local decision makers accountable for the decisions they make, the Government now seems to be changing things again but limiting parental rights previously given, for example by introducing a new right to request a school only on a preapproved LA list, or by limiting the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal by introducing mandatory mediation.
Some argue that this does not recognise the inherent inequality that exists in SEND disputes, as appeals are used to ensure that the law is complied with in the first place, so the Government shouldn’t restrict the chance of redress. However, the proposals have been met with a generally warm reception from LAs, who point out that the previous reforms from the Children and Families Act 2014 failed to improve the system as hoped and, although placing children and young people at the centre of the SEND system was right, the reforms were not supported by sufficient funding to allow them to succeed.
Local Authorities also welcome the fact that children and young people will now be educated more inclusively in local mainstream provision.
SEND Review: broken promises
Warren Carrett on the missed opportunities of the Green Paper.
When it landed on Tuesday 29 March 2022, the Government’s Green Paper on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) marked over two years of consultation on what many see as a broken system.
Since the introduction of the Children & Families Act in 2014, the numbers of children and young people with an Education Health & Care Plan (EHCP) has risen hugely, and over two thirds of Local Authorities – who retain responsibility for the commissioning of support for children with SEND – have large budgetary overspends, with many special schools under huge pressure to admit more and more pupils without the significant capital investment needed to create more spaces.
Then there’s the higher cost of specialist places adding further pressure on overspent budgets, an issue which is compounded by the exponential rise in parents taking councils through the courts to secure a specialist place for their child. Cue vicious cycle.
All of this in the context of a high stakes accountability framework and league tables for mainstream schools, which surely drives the exclusion of vulnerable learners, rather than inclusion.
Financial insufficiency and an absence of available placements brings the natural dithering – even avoidance – of decision making by Councils, leaving many parents angry and desperate whilst pupils wait and wait for a new school place.
No pressure, then, on a Green Paper published just after an economy de-railing pandemic and in the middle of war in Europe, with a Government wrestling with sky rocketing costs and a political drive (currently stalled in a layby!) to keep taxation low and alleviate a cost of living crisis.
It is clear that the systemic challenges we face in SEND are beyond what any Green Paper can offer at this time, in a post-COVID, post-Brexit Britain. So we should recognsie that without strong political leadership supported by a big budget settlement from Number 11, any Green Paper on SEND will struggle to address root cause issues.
However, this Green Paper seems to aspire to paper over the existing wallpaper, not even the cracks, leaving a bitter taste of disappointment and opportunity lost.
“A bitter taste of disappointment and opportunity lost”
The suggestion that new standards are needed for mainstream schools to be more inclusive is perplexing. The current SEND Code of Practice – which the Green Paper also separately suggests needs updating – already makes it really clear what is expected, and all teachers have to comply with the Teacher Standards. Why more, additional standards are helpful at this time – when a simpler, more streamlined system is what’s needed – is difficult to fathom.
The White Paper, published on Monday 28 March, sets the ambitious target of 90% of children making expected or better progress in Reading, Writing and Maths at the end of Key Stage 2. Given how far away schools currently are from that target, it’s impossible not to fear that more exclusion of vulnerable learners is being generated by the system that the Government want to be more inclusive.
The Green Paper suggests that children just need better teachers, and that the flow of specialist staff out of mainstream and into special schools must be stemmed.
Two thoughts on this: firstly, I really don’t agree that the current outcomes at KS2 for Reading, Writing and Maths are because teachers aren’t working hard enough, and unrealistic, arbitrary target setting will certainly increase pressure on Heads and teachers alike, increasing turnover and weakening our state education system.
Secondly, staff don’t leave mainstream because of the irresistible siren song of special schools. They leave for the same reason anyone leaves a sector: because it is just too hard to carry on. Usually, because there isn’t the financial resource to give children the support they need in mainstream, or because expectations aren’t relative to need. The White Paper aspirations compound this. The Green Paper offers nothing on finance to counteract it, beyond a suggestion that the notional £6k in mainstream budgets needs to be reviewed.
“Embarrassingly short of what is needed”
The finger for why High Needs budgets are so overspent is pointed to the independent specialist sector early in the Green Paper, but then this issue is left there with no statement for how this could be addressed.
The extra £1billion promised to stabilise the system falls short of the structural deficits across Councils, and isn’t followed up by a funding commitment to resource budgets sufficiently in future.
What the SEND system needs is the same approach the NHS now has: historical deficits wiped off as an acknowledgement that they have accumulated over a decade of underfunding, and a long term funding plan that not only wipes out structural deficits but also plans for future cost increases, with both population growth and inflation hitting special schools harder than most given the higher staff ratios.
Mainstream schools have this certainty with the National Funding Formula.
Special schools haven’t even been given the same guaranteed funding from Government to meet in-year pressures that mainstream schools have, with the Schools Supplementary Grant (SSG) being shockingly withheld by most Councils this year. This is a worrying indicator that financial recovery for the sector will be expected to come from providers facing squeezed budgets (but not Independent, as they sit outside of the sphere of Government control). Very worrying indeed.
The absence of any proposal for schools to have voice in the mediation/arbitration process for naming a setting on an EHCP is also a big worry, and the proposals to tighten how schools can be directed could leave the resourcing of provision a unilateral matter for Councils to determine. If budgets continue to be hindered by systemic under-funding, how long until unilateralism becomes the only means of financial stability for Councils? For many of us, we are already battling that on a daily basis.
That, finally, brings me to the role of Councils in this brave, new world. The area inspections by Ofsted and CQC seem to have drawn the unavoidable conclusion that many Councils aren’t fit for purpose and are failing to meet the legal duties on them. What else do we expect? Councils have been cut to the bone with austerity and don’t have the resource base
About the author
Warren Carrett is the chief executive of Nexus Multi Academy Trust, which has 12 special schools across 4 different local authority areas in South Yorkshire and the East Midlands. Warren has been CEO at Nexus since the Trust was formed in 2016. Warren has worked previously in local and national senior officer posts in the NHS and local government. Nexus MAT was awarded national winner for Outstanding Vision and Strategy by the National Governance Association in 2017, and were national finalists for Outstanding Multi Academy Trust Board in the 2021 awards.
to do what they must. It’s irrefutable that a number have also failed to manage their budgets well, with a lack of any strategy for change. This is all about the absence of capacity, and the system is begging for a change in roles and responsibilities. Councils can’t have a reduced role in the eyes of Government, whilst keeping all they’ve been asked to do.
So what does the Green Paper propose? To create more bureaucracy for Councils, with more performance measures and data that must be collected locally and the requirement for yet more local “plans”, which will likely reduce the prospect of regional collaboration and draw more resource into the servicing of local red tape. The promise of around 1.2 extra trained Educational Psychologists per council is well intended, but also embarrassingly short of what is needed, and the pledge is to fund their training – not their ongoing employment. Yet more costs for overspent councils to live with.
I know there are others who believe the Green Paper offers promise. Without doubt, it is good news for AP schools, who should finally get the respect and security they have so long deserved. And I suppose new wallpaper is still new wallpaper, even if it’s replacing the old and tattered variety and leaving the cracks exposed. However, we needed more.
In trying to assure myself I’m not becoming a grumpy old man in my assessment of the Green Paper, I have chosen to embrace the Spanish idiom that a pessimist is merely a realistic optimist… the problem for us all with this Green Paper is that reality is already biting hard.
Acquired Brain Injury (ABI)
Dr Emily Bennett on helping a student back into school after an ABI.
Over 40,000 children and young people (CYP) in the UK experience some kind of acquired brain injury (ABI) every year (NHS England, 2018). While the majority will go back to the school they attended before their injury or illness, many will return with different needs, and will require support from their teachers to assist their recovery and adjustment. Despite this, many teachers and SENCOs report knowing little about ABI, and schools frequently feel unprepared and ill-informed to manage the new needs presented by a child returning to school after an ABI.
What is the impact of childhood ABI?
An ABI is an injury to the brain that is acquired after a period of typical development. ABI is identified as the leading cause of death and disability in childhood and can be the result of accident/trauma, infection, illness, stroke, tumour or hypoxic events to the brain.
ABIs can range from mild (e.g. concussion) to severe, with the subsequent need for support in school ranging from simple adaptations in the weeks after an injury, to long-term individual support or even changes in school placement. ABI can impact children across the SEN Code of Practice’s four broad areas of need; changes in behaviour and emotions are common, as are cognitive, physical and sensory difficulties. Many CYP also experience high levels of fatigue; and changes in their communication and social skills.
“Many teachers report knowing little about ABI”
One of the key challenges with childhood ABI is its ‘dynamic’, and often hidden impact. The true impact of an ABI may only become evident as the CYP’s brain develops across childhood and adolescence; meaning support within education settings may have to evolve as the CYP’s presenting needs do.
Returning to education after an ABI
After an ABI, CYP and their families are often faced with the challenge of adjusting to a ‘new normal’ in many areas of their lives. Returning to their education setting is frequently cited as one of the most difficult aspects, with many CYP finding school both familiar, yet completely different. There are a number of reasons this transition can be so challenging, including a lack of training about ABI for teachers, the time taken for the SEND system to respond to acquired needs (e.g. EHCP process/funding applications), and a scarcity of pathways and planning to ensure there is collaborative support across health and education.
Developing resources to support schools: ABI RETURN
In light of the crucial contribution made by schools within a child’s rehabilitation after ABI, education has been a key priority within the work of an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Acquired Brain Injury (APPG on ABI). The National ABI in Learning and Education Syndicate (N-ABLES), was formed on the back of the APPG’s Time for Change Report and aims to drive for improved awareness of ABI in education settings.
A key priority for N-ABLES was the development of best practice guidance to support the return to education process. This was collaboratively created by a group of professionals working with children with ABI and educators from around the UK. The guidance established core principles for support, which focused on:
• planning and preparation; • communication and training; • flexible and dynamic responses within the system; • child and family-centred working; • participation and inclusion.
“Re-learning and coping with newly acquired needs.”
The ABI RETURN guidance includes a poster outlining core principles, forms for teachers and schools to support information sharing and planning of a successful return, and stories from children and young people with an ABI.
The accompanying support booklet provides key information about childhood ABI. It has a range of material to aid schools as they navigate an often unfamiliar system; this includes details of professionals who may be involved, and signposting to sources of support. It emphasises the importance of the network sharing information to support schools as they prepare for the CYP’s return to education. The booklet also offers insight into how ABIs can present in the classroom, to help teachers in recognising and effectively supporting the often hidden needs associated with ABI.
All N-ABLES resources can be downloaded for free from
https://ukabif.org.uk/page/ABIRETURN
About the author
Dr Emily Bennett is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist in Paediatric Neuropsychology at Nottingham Children’s Hospital, and the Chair for the National Acquired Brain Injury Learning and Education Syndicate (NABLES).
https://bit.ly/3NX8UKX @NABLES10
@EmBennett78
Making a difference together
Childhood ABI can present challenges across broad areas of need, and effective RtE planning reflects some of the crucial first steps schools can take in getting support right. Through effective collaboration and communication with the child, family and other professionals, SENCOs and teachers can help ensure their school makes a significant contribution to a child’s rehabilitation by supporting essential relearning, and compensation for newly acquired needs. Ultimately, this support can reduce the longer-term impact of a CYP’s ABI and instead, maximise their participation, self-esteem and success throughout their time in education.
Want to know more about ABI?
SENCOs and teachers can learn more about childhood ABI through a range of free and easily accessible training and resources:
• The Child Brain Injury Trust (CBIT): www.childbraininjurytrust.org.uk produce a range of resources and offer training courses (supported by the Eden Dora Trust) for teachers
• NASEN and CBIT publication for teaching professionals: https://childbraininjurytrust.org.uk/
wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ABI-Mini-Guide.pdf
• The Children’s Trust: https://www.braininjuryhub. co.uk/information-library/return-to-education
Please visit NABLES for a full signposting list:
