Inquiry Day on Deaf and Hearing Impaired Services

20th October 2011

Brian Gale

Director Policy & Campaigns

Who are we discussing?

• Temporary

• Mild and unilateral

• Moderate to profound

The big issue?

• Underachievement

• The gap in attainment

Some key issues

• Low incidence and heterogeneity

• Starting school with age appropriate language

• A range of provision

• Knowledge and skills of school staff of a “low incidence” need

• Acoustic quality of buildings

• “Mainstreaming” or genuine inclusion

• Hidden / under-estimated

disability

• Aspiration / expectations

• After Year 11?

• Access to social care

• Access to good health services (audiology, speech and language therapy, mental health services)

CLOSING THE ATTAINMENT GAP

A MEASURE OF THE ISSUE

The gap: % achieving 5 A*-C including E&M

HI Pupils All Pupils

2010 35.5% 54.8%

2009 29.4% 50.7%

2008 28.3% 48.2%

2007 27.2% 45.8%

Size of the gap 2009

England SW

5 A*-C GCSEs including English & Maths

43% 44%

Pupils with 5 A*-C GCSEs in all subjects

29% 22%

Size of gap: 5+ A*-C GCSEs including English & Maths

%achieving level 4 in English at KS 2

HI All

2010 52.3% 80.3%

2009 49.5% 79.9%

2008 52.1% 81%

% achieving level 4 Maths at KS2

HI All

2010 55.6% 80.1%

2009 52.8% 78.7%

2008 51.7% 78.4%

% making 2 levels of progress between KS1 and KS 2

English Maths

All children 82% 87%

Children with a HI 70% 66%

% making two levels of progress - KS 2 to KS4

English Maths

All children 66% 54%

With a HI 54% 48%

THE DEMAND AND MODELS OF SERVICE

DELIVERY

School Census 2010:

Pupils where HI is main type of SEN at SA+ or with Statements:Increased by 5% in a year

10% attended special school (in 2008 it was 11.3%)

59% at SA+; 41% S’mnts21% eligible for FSM (17% for children with no SEN)

7% recorded as gifted and talented

27% from a minority ethnic group

25% with additional SEN (compared with 20% for all children)

NDCS – BATOD Survey

Counts all children known to LAs

•2000 – 25,000

•2009 – 34,700

• Those attending specialist provision for HI reduced by 16.8%.

• Those attending other types of special school +13.1%

Age Distribution 2000 - 2009

2000 2009

Early Years 9% 11%

School ages 89% 83%

Post-16 2% 6%

2009 NDCS: Provision

School Aged Pupils Attending England SW

Mainstream 76.4% 85.7%

M’stream unit 8.0% 2.4%

LA sp sch for HI 2.4% 2.6%

Other special schools 7.7% 6.6%

Non-maintained sp sch 2.1% 1.6%

Schools outside the LA 2.1% 0.6%Other 1.4% 0.6%

Service Size

Excludes:

Social Workers / Family support

Other staff such as CSWs

Services with an Educational Audiologist

Percentage with an EA:

•England 56%

•SW 75%

Funding schools with resourced provision

% of schs funding held centrally:

•England 32%

•SW 13%

(over 50% LAs without SLAs)

Funding support services 2009• Centrally funded 128 LAs

• Outreach from a school (delegated) 8 LAs

• Delegated to individual schools 5 LAs

The risk of multi agency locality teams

They don’t work for deaf children

Norfolk CC piloting a virtual school for deaf children

Diversification in special schools?• Intake policy widening

• Deaf pupils with more complex needs

• Young adults

• Social care

• Full service schools

FUNDING

Reform / NNF

• Future of LACSEG

• High / Low Incidence Needs Funding Block

• Respective responsibility for SEN

• Low incidence / higher incidence

differences

• Local flexibility?

• Special schools (maintained / academy and free) – place v pupil

• Post 16 alignment

• Resource banding

• Personalised budgets

Capital• Priority to accessibility

• Loss of school access initiative

• Future of area arrangements

• Centralised design and procurement

Best Practice

• Multi-agency support from birth

/diagnosis

• Strong emphasis on language development & communication

• Parental engagement and informed choice

• Address social and emotional needs

• “leave school with a strong deaf identity and a sense of who they are and why” Ofsted

• Access to a full range of provision

• Good leadership and management

• Investment in training of the specialist staff

A real engagement with the issues identified by the Ofsted SEN review and the themes in Achievement for All

Assessment and provision •Where assessment was good or outstanding, the achievement of just under two thirds of children and young people was good or outstanding

Where assessment was satisfactory or inadequate, achievement was good or outstanding for just over a quarter of children and young people

However, even where assessment was accurate, timely, and identified the appropriate additional support, this did not guarantee that the support would be of good quality

• Good or outstanding expertise in special educational needs led to more secure assessment of need

Features of good practice :

•provision based on careful analysis of need, close monitoring of each individual’s progress and a shared perception of desired outcomes

• evaluation of the effectiveness of provision in helping to improve opportunities and progress

• swift changes to provision as a result of evaluating achievement and well-being

Teachers teaching the best lessons will have

A thorough knowledge and understanding of

• The pupil and of how HI can affect learning.

• Teaching strategies and techniques• The subject or areas of learning

being taught

The best practice ensured that:• there was analysis of outcomes• the views of young people and their parents or carers

were taken into account• there was regular challenge to the possible

achievement and destinations • all services ‘signed up’ to the provision and

monitored resulting outcomes• distinctive roles were recognised while understanding

the need to work flexibly to achieve joint goals.

Evaluation and accountability

Ofsted review

• High aspirations and a focus on enabling children and young people to be as independent as possible led most reliably to the best achievement