The National Association of Head Teachers welcomes this timely formal call for evidence to review the provision of support for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs.
The very fact that over 89,000 school-aged children have speech and language difficulties as their primary special educational needs, with more having lesser difficulties or being undiagnosed, makes the need for early recognition and referral for appropriate support of paramount importance. Communication difficulties impact on pupils’ ability to learn, to progress and to develop their social skills. This is further evidenced by the national statistics released in January 2007, which illustrated a rise in behavioural difficulties in secondary education, linked to communication difficulties. The statistics illustrated that some 30% of children were exhibiting behavioural emotional and social difficulties, as a result of their difficulties with communication.
We note that the Department for Children, Schools and Families launched in October 2007 their Inclusion Development Programme (IDP). As promised in the Government’s SEN Strategy, Removing Barriers to Achievement, the National Strategies Team leading the work on the IDP, proposes that in 2007-08 the IDP will focus on speech, language and communications needs (SLCN) and dyslexia. Leading national specialist organisations – Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists, I-CAN, Dyslexia Action and other voluntary bodies - are working in partnership with the National Strategies Team in the development of this continuing professional development programme, which is to be made available to schools, early years settings and to providers of initial teacher training. We believe the first strand of the IDP is directly aligned to the Bercow Review. The National Strategies Team and the DCSF are currently focused on promoting the IDP through Local Authorities, but for this to make an impact, School Leaders need to be involved from the outset. The Association has stressed this point and NAHT together with NASEN are currently offering to raise the profile of the IDP through training seminars, including one that will take place as part of the 2008 Education Show in Birmingham.
However, we found it disconcerting to be informed, in conversation with a colleague from the Royal College of Speech & Language, at the recent DCSF Launch of the IDP, that the NHS were not looking at speech and language therapy as a priority, since it was to quote “not life threatening” and funding for provision of therapists was not readily forthcoming. Unfortunately, the impact of this, we were told, caused therapists to leave the profession. Surely, when educationalists agree that communication is a priority for children to progress, to develop their learning and social skills, a pooling of resources by all agencies – education, health and social services, - would seem appropriate and budgetary constraints should not be the dictating factor, particularly, when the longer term impact of communication difficulties on budgets will ultimately affect all agencies and government departments – the Home Office, Health and Education.
NAHT has recently invited comments on current speech and language provision in members’ schools and localities. The response has been overwhelming, particularly from schools in Gloucestershire, demonstrating that school leaders have grave concerns about provision in areas where there is a shortage of therapists. These have included: unfilled vacancies for up to year, provision for only those pupils with severe impairments warranting help, and a haphazard service that rarely meets the needs of children.
The county of Gloucestershire seems to be particularly lacking. One consultant head, now a school improvement officer, highlighted a lack of support in the development of early communication skills and her own challenge has been to commission appropriate support. She states: “…and what a challenge it has been”. This member describes schools in deprived areas, where school leaders are encountering problems around EAL and underdeveloped parental language skills. In more affluent areas, it seems there are circumstances where some children experience a succession of child minders, because mum and dad are at work, or rely on the television or computer to baby-sit. This member advises that she has commissioned a therapist to run some “Let’s Talk” sessions for parents of pre-school and early years’ children, an example of good practice that could be established by other schools / local authorities. It seems some members are prepared to pay and would welcome Speech and Language Therapy returning to the education fold.
In some circumstances, it appears to be the case, that before a referral can be made the Educational Psychologist requires evidence through getting a full speech and language report from the therapist, which can only prolong a delay in provision. Many members refer to provision in their area as being a ‘joke,’ in situations where many pupils urgently need support and that it is nigh on impossible to get any, some members reporting that accessing speech therapy has been a major problem for their school for over ten years. Again, this school is in Gloucestershire.
It seems that even when a statement specifies speech therapy support for a child with Downs Syndrome that there is insufficient capacity in some local authorities.
The best case scenario to support pupils, schools and parents, would indicate that provision should be available at the school. Parents who have to take their children to a health clinic which is ‘a bus ride away’ are not all willing, or able to do so. In any case, this means pupils missing out on valuable time in school.
What appears to be a lack of provision for such specialist support in some areas is extremely frustrating for all parties. Whether children have delayed language or a language disorder of some kind, the consequences can seriously affect their future life chances, unless they receive the help they need before their difficulties become more entrenched. The first chapter of the Government’s SEN Strategy states that: “Early intervention is the cornerstone of our strategy.” The review will need to advise not only on identifying and meeting the diversity of needs and secure value for money, but it will need to challenge within the context of the Comprehensive Spending Review whether provision is appropriately and adequately resourced and sustained in all local authorities, in a way that enables early intervention to become a reality.
Local agencies should be used to promote and provide quality early and ongoing intervention strategies to improve and sustain the services for which they are responsible. Provision should be monitored and examples of good practice viewed as benchmarks for delivery of local services across the country, so that there is parity of provision for all children with language and communication needs and that it does not depend on where pupils’ live. As well as the example of effective practice mentioned earlier, we are aware of examples of speech and language therapists and school staff working alongside each other in the classroom, in order to improve each others’ skills and to reach a wider group of children. This approach needs to be replicated more generally.
The review needs to consider the overall framework to ensure sufficient responsive speech and language therapy services to meet local needs within, not only the health service framework, but within the frameworks of associated education and social services. There needs to be clarity of accountability and responsibility for planning and service delivery across the board to ensure consistency of provision.
It cannot be too highly stressed that the emphasis should be on intervention in the early years, as well as ongoing provision for children and young people throughout the age range, where early intervention has been insufficient to meet a child’s needs. Particular care needs to be taken when children and young people are in vulnerable situations, such as those at risk of offending or re-offending, or those at risk of exclusion from resultant behavioural problems. The review should consider how to support the provision of information and how to promote partnerships between service providers, parents and pupils, from early years through to adolescent and the transition to adult services.
NAHT’s membership of school leaders ranges from pre-school to 19 years and includes members working in special schools, pupil referral units and other types of specialist settings. If we can further inform the review through more in depth discussion we would be delighted to contribute.
