Inquiry Day on Deaf and Hearing Impaired Services 20th October 2011

1. Inquiry Day on Deaf and Hearing Impaired Services20th October 2011 Brian Gale Director Policy & Campaigns

2. Who are we discussing? • Temporary • Mild and unilateral • Moderate to profound

3. The big issue? • Underachievement • The gap in attainment

4. Some key issues • Low incidence and heterogeneity • Starting school with age appropriate language • A range of provision

5. Knowledge and skills of school staff of a “low incidence” need • Acoustic quality of buildings • “Mainstreaming” or genuine inclusion

6. Hidden / under-estimated disability • Aspiration / expectations • After Year 11?

7. Access to social care • Access to good health services (audiology, speech and language therapy, mental health services)

8. CLOSING THE ATTAINMENT GAP A MEASURE OF THE ISSUE

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

10. Size of the gap 2009

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

12. %achieving level 4 in English at KS 2

13. % achieving level 4 Maths at KS2

14. % making 2 levels of progress between KS1 and KS 2

15. % making two levels of progress - KS 2 to KS4

16. THE DEMAND AND MODELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY

17. 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%)

18. 59% at SA+; 41% S’mnts • 21% eligible for FSM (17% for children with no SEN) • 7% recorded as gifted and talented

19. 27% from a minority ethnic group • 25% with additional SEN (compared with 20% for all children)

20. NDCS – BATOD Survey Counts all children known to LAs • 2000 – 25,000 • 2009 – 34,700

21. Those attending specialist provision for HI reduced by 16.8%. • Those attending other types of special school +13.1%

22. Age Distribution 2000 - 2009

23. 2009 NDCS: Provision

24. Service Size

25. Excludes: Social Workers / Family support Other staff such as CSWs

26. Services with an Educational Audiologist Percentage with an EA: • England 56% • SW 75%

27. Funding schools with resourced provision % of schs funding held centrally: • England 32% • SW 13% (over 50% LAs without SLAs)

28. Funding support services 2009 • Centrally funded 128 LAs • Outreach from a school (delegated) 8 LAs • Delegated to individual schools 5 LAs

29. The risk of multi agency locality teams They don’t work for deaf children

30. Norfolk CC piloting a virtual school for deaf children

31. Diversification in special schools? • Intake policy widening • Deaf pupils with more complex needs • Young adults • Social care • Full service schools

32. FUNDING

33. Reform / NNF • Future of LACSEG • High / Low Incidence Needs Funding Block • Respective responsibility for SEN

34. Low incidence / higher incidence differences • Local flexibility? • Special schools (maintained / academy and free) – place v pupil

35. Post 16 alignment • Resource banding • Personalised budgets

36. Capital • Priority to accessibility • Loss of school access initiative • Future of area arrangements • Centralised design and procurement

37. Best Practice

38. Multi-agency support from birth /diagnosis • Strong emphasis on language development & communication • Parental engagement and informed choice

39. Address social and emotional needs • “leave school with a strong deaf identity and a sense of who they are and why” Ofsted

40. Access to a full range of provision • Good leadership and management • Investment in training of the specialist staff

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

42. 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

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

44. 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

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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. Evaluation and accountability 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.

50. 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