From Policy to Practice Implications for Services for

From Policy to Practice Implications for Services for sensory impaired children and young people Sue Lewis

Policy to practice: prerequisites for delivering an effective service to individual SI children, their families and schools

A service delivered to meet Individual children and family needs, but informed by an understanding of l Educational (and political) context l Research within the specialist and the broader field l What specialist services bring to the table and why they are needed

Context: understanding of § § § government policy and guidance – both mainstream and SEND; legal requirements, upcoming reviews, consultations, where SEND sits within governmental priorities individual school organisation, curriculum and specialisms; this school’s current position regarding SEND, inclusion and teaching and learning the challenges these might present to ‘traditional’ service delivery

Context: 2019 marks § § § 10 years since the Lamb Enquiry and Report 5 years since the Children and Families Act and publication of SEND Code of Practice. 18 years since the newborn hearing screening programme was introduced, more since the original piloting 110 years since mandatory qualification introduced for To. Ds Depletion of services

l Despite the mandatory qualification our biggest challenge is to ensure that children, schools and families have access to the specialist support they need and indeed are entitled to within a context where services are depleting and SI teachers tell me that policy makers within local SEND services appear not to understand that entitlement.

Previous speakers have already said much about these contexts and indeed about the mandatory qualification As teachers of the deaf and of the VI it is imperative we keep not only up-to-date with these but also ahead of the game

Keep these three words prominent in your thinking l l Intent Implementation Impact They are words we are using at Ofsted as we review and define the curriculum but that are nonetheless helpful in refining our thinking here

Intent l l l What is the job intended to achieve? The mandatory competencies cite improving the achievement of deaf / VI children. I suspect we could summarise it as Promoting the optimal learning and well being of deaf and VI children and young people

A definition: David Didau l Learning … must be durable and flexible. If we accept these ideas then we should also accept that learning cannot be observed in the here and now. The only way to see if something has been retained over time and transferred to a new context is to look at what students can do later and elsewhere

Learning (and progress) l Can be vertical, horizontal and diagonal – all are important if firm foundations are to be laid for later learning and understandings l If the ‘specialist curriculum’ is well planned it builds knowledge sequentially, mapping experiences and understandings onto each other but gaps will inhibit the acquisition of higher skills

So within this context what are we promoting and tracking and why? l l l What do they tell us about the child’s learning and how durable it is? What do they tell us about the child’s wellbeing What indicators of learning and progress can we provide relevant to the specialist curriculum

Amanda Spielman HMCI has spoken often about Ofsted’s position l l l Inspectors will take into account a broader range of indicators than simply academic when considering how well school’s promote children’s progress; what other impact indicators might we contribute? In the new EIF there will be a renewed emphasis on the curriculum, its richness, relevance, its developmental nature, its depth – how well it promotes knowledge and understanding. How well does the specialist curriculum we offer do this?

Mandatory Qualification = empowering but…. . l l Are we too focused on what we do, rather than why? i. e. what is deaf children having access to teachers of the deaf meant to achieve? This is not about what we do but how and why? Do we speak up for deaf and VI children’s right to specialist support as enshrined in the Code of Practice, equality and disability discrimination legislation and guidance to secure this for them? Does such support have the right focus for this child and is it implemented so that their priority needs are met? What is the specialist curriculum on offer and why?

An example: we know what is at risk because of early childhood deafness and/or visual impairment l l What fundamental principles about helping the child to extend their language knowledge and promoting access and independence inform emphases in our daily work with this child/ that school etc How proactively are we laying firm foundations for later learning in everything we do? Or are we spending too much time helping the school deliver chunks of content?

l l How well learning (or what we might is call the specialist curriculum) is planned is critical Even if we use the subjects or topics within the school to support SI children’s learning linked to their priority needs, we must be clear as to what we are supporting so that their priority learning needs are addressed

In my discussions with teachers of the deaf and leaders l l They tended to tell me what they did (implementation) rather than why they did it (intent). This often meant they focused on the success of individual activities or the challenges of them rather than the impact of the programme as a whole

So how might this change l l l In articulating our intent we determine our activities We accept that our impact is to be measured longer term than in short term fixes We ensure trainee teachers of the deaf and of the VI have the training and support they need to realise the intent

l This then requires a definition of learning and a recognition that the current ways of tracking progress in schools and local authorities do not necessarily encompass the specialist learning/ progress essential for all other learning to move on

So if teachers of the SI children support learning l l Are we tracking the durability of children’s learning, rather than ticking off short term goals Are we ensuring that learning builds on prior learning and experiences so that it can draw on but also enrich these (schema and schemata) Do we recognise that learning can be vertical, horizontal, diagonal, multi-layered? How do we contribute to school discussions about curriculum objectives, learning and progress

Curriculum, learning and progress: impact on areas at risk because of early childhood deafness/ VI l l l Language levels Literacy Levels Emotional wellbeing Broader personal development and independence/ mobility Preparation for Adult Life

And finally – the fourth i: intent, implementation, impact - influence l l l Influence – engage in discussion about the curriculum and progress; out job is all about influencing Contribute to consultations – mainstream and SEND Use your knowledge about mainstream issues, challenges, successes, research as well as your specialist knowledge to be a player in what is planned for in schools for pupils with SEND rather than simply a ‘visitor’

For example: Ofsted research and evaluation l l The consultation re the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) offers an opportunity for your views to be heard as to how and where SEND is placed within the framework; to inform the framework and guidance to inspectors and to understand how the new framework is likely to operate Two Ofsted research and evaluation projects re SEND within the next financial year.

For example: l l l LA SEND: there are still a large number of LAs to be reviewed, be prepared, engage with the process, encourage parents and young people to engage with the process EIF – we must understand a school’s / academy chain’s priorities and the messages they are receiving re what to prioritise and why, if we are to influence their provision 10 years on from the Lamb Enquiry do pupils with SEND get the specialist support they need?

Thankyou Susan. lewis@Ofsted. gov. uk