RNIB Submission to Education and Skills Select Committee on Special Educational Needs

1. Introduction

RNIB is the UK's leading charity offering information, advice and guidance to over two million people with sight problems, with a national Children's Services team concerned with the interests of blind and partially sighted children and young people, including those with additional needs. RNIB is in a strong position to maintain an overview of educational provision for visually impaired pupils around the country. While we broadly welcome the government's strategic approach to education we are conscious that, in order for children and young people with visual impairment to have equal access to high quality educational opportunities, there is still much to be done in order to address some significant weaknesses. We are pleased, therefore, to have this opportunity to submit evidence to the Select Committee on Special Educational Needs and would welcome the opportunity to supplement this information with oral evidence. If members of the Select Committee would like to hear the views of blind or partially sighted pupils RNIB would be happy to provide a CD recording of pupils' accounts of their experiences of school.

The submission begins with background information, which is intended to inform members about the population of children and young people with visual impairment and the context in which they are educated. This is followed by RNIB's policy position on the education of blind and partially sighted pupils. The remainder of the submission is organised around the topic headings identified by the Select Committee.

2. Background

Visual impairment, which includes both blindness and partial sight, is a low incidence impairment. It is estimated that there are around 17,500 children in England between the ages of five and 16 with a visual impairment of sufficient severity to require specialist support. Approximately 50 percent of the children have a single impairment, 20 percent have some additional need or needs and 30 percent have profound or complex needs with associated learning difficulties. Out of all pupils with a visual impairment only around 4 percent use braille.

Fifty nine percent of blind or partially sighted children are educated in mainstream schools. This number has remained static for a number of years. Pupils attending mainstream schools may attend their local school with support provided by the local authority specialist support service or a school that is specifically resourced for blind and partially sighted pupils where specialist support forms part of the permanent school staffing. Just over three in ten visually impaired pupils attend maintained special schools for pupils with learning and/or physical disabilities, while only one in 20 attend special schools for pupils who are blind or partially sighted (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003). In the latter, most class or subject teachers will hold an additional qualification in visual impairment. The number of schools that exist specifically for visually impaired children has fallen significantly in recent years as increasing numbers are included in the mainstream. Those that remain are educating pupils with increasingly complex needs.

A number of different factors are involved in a blind or partially sighted pupil's access to the curriculum. These factors are influenced at a micro level by the characteristics of the individual pupil and at a macro level by the organisational context within which educational support is delivered. Pupil characteristics include type, severity and age of onset of the visual impairment, presence or absence of other disabilities and/or learning difficulties, and the pupil's own attitude towards their visual impairment and to their need for additional support and how this is delivered. Organisational factors include the type of setting in which the pupil is educated, and the size and structure, including method of funding, of the LEA VI service.

Depending upon the degree and nature of their visual impairment, a pupil may use non-sighted or sighted methods, or a combination of both, to access the curriculum. Examples of non-sighted methods are braille, audio-tape, and computer with speech software. Sighted methods include enlarged or modified print, low vision devices such as magnifiers and computers with large screen monitor and/or enlarged text on screen. Some environmental adaptations may also be necessary, for example increasing or decreasing the level of illumination in the pupil's work space. The class or subject teacher plays a crucial role in ensuring that the range of strategies or approaches used enable the pupil with visual impairment to be fully included in the class.

3. RNIB's policy position on the education of blind and partially sighted pupils

RNIB believes that every pupil with a visual impairment is entitled to high quality education with equal access to appropriate specialist provision no matter where he/she lives within the UK. This requires that a range of specialist resources and support arrangements are put in place which match the range and distribution of educational needs amongst the whole population of visually impaired children, including those with additional needs and/or disabilities. For most visually impaired children the appropriate placement is a mainstream school with specialist support. The provision must be of sufficient standard to enable the visually impaired child to access the full range of educational opportunities available to fully sighted children, as well as providing for the particular needs arising from the visual impairment. While well resourced and properly supported mainstream placements should be the usual form of provision, a special school placement continues to be the most effective way of meeting need for some children, in particular those who have severe and complex disabilities in addition to visual impairment. Wherever children are being educated it is essential that schools as well as support services take full responsibility for ensuring that that the child's needs relating to visual impairment are properly addressed. Inclusion is as much about the ethos and social life of schools as it is about access to the taught curriculum. It is essential, therefore, to provide the range of educational and social opportunities that enable children to participate on an equal basis with their peers in order to become fully included members of the community.

Fundamental to achieving these objectives is to fully involve parents and children in decisions about their educational provision.

RNIB believes that the increased delegation of SEN funding to individual schools works against the interests of children with a low incidence disability such as visual impairment. Delegation risks fragmenting central VI services. RNIB supports the retention of centrally funded and managed visual impairment advisory services. This model allows greater flexibility of staffing enabling specialist staff to be deployed where they are most needed and ensures greater job security.

4. Provision for SEN pupils in mainstream schools: availability of resources and expertise; different models of provision

A major concern for RNIB is the huge variation across the country in educational provision for blind and partially sighted pupils. There is variation between LEAs in terms of type of educational placement available and in standards of educational support provided.

The three key components that together promote the successful inclusion of pupils who are blind and partially sighted are:

· A coherent system of funding that promotes the organisation of high quality central support services.

· A national set of standards that are universally adopted by local authorities.

· The readiness of mainstream schools to admit and take responsibility for blind and partially sighted children, and the commitment of the LEA in promoting and supporting this.

4.1 A coherent system of SEN funding

Of particular concern to RNIB is the drive towards greater delegation of SEN funds from central LEA control direct to schools. RNIB considers that this arrangement is inappropriate for low incidence SEN such as sensory impairments, which require a high degree of specialist teaching support and resources and due to economies of scale function better under a centrally organised and funded model. Delegation risks fragmenting central VI service teams. A centrally funded system allows greater flexibility of staffing enabling specialist staff to be deployed where they are most needed and ensures greater job security. (See Gray, 2001; Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2002.)

The main concerns about the consequences of delegation are:

Schools lack the knowledge and expertise to judge what is needed in terms of specialist provision.

Under full delegation schools have the option of buying in support from the local VI service, or to go elsewhere such as to the VI service in the neighbouring LEA. This leads to uncertainty, affects VI service planning and may lead to fragmentation of VI services because of lack of centrally held budget to pay staff salaries. (Fletcher-Campbell and Cullen, 1999; Gray, 2001.)

If schools can choose whether or not to buy in educational support there is a risk that they may go for a cheaper option and purchase less teaching or support time than specialist teachers feel is needed. Pupils without the protection of a statement would be particularly at risk of having their support reduced in this way. (Wakefield and Mackenzie, 2005; Wilkin, Archer, Ridley, Fletcher-Campbell and Kinder, 2005.)

Schools may ignore specialist advisory teacher advice about purchase of specialist equipment and go for a cheaper (and less appropriate) option. (Wakefield and Mackenzie, 2005.)

Where budgets are fully or partially delegated, e.g. to additionally resourced mainstream schools for pupils with visual impairment and/or special schools within an LEA, no single agency has an overview of the number and characteristics of pupils with visual impairment in that LEA. (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003.)

Where budgets are fully or partially delegated there may be inadequate monitoring of provision of educational support to pupils with visual impairment. (Fletcher-Campbell and Cullen, 1999; Gray, 2001; Audit Commission, 2002; Teachernet, 2003.)

There will be no central source of funding to finance the training of new specialist teachers of pupils with visual impairment. LEAs with delegated SEN (VI) budgets are likely to lack a strategic approach to specialist teacher training and professional development. (Gray, 2001.)

The specialist teacher plays a central role in setting up and supporting the provision for blind and partially sighted pupils (Keil, 2004b). There are concerns that as a result of the combined effects of delegation of central VI service budgets to schools, and the transfer of Standards Fund grants from LEA control to schools, there will no longer be a central source of funding for training of new specialist teachers. Linked to this issue is the concern that LEAs with delegated SEN (VI) budgets will lack a strategic approach to specialist teacher training. For example, instead of anticipating future needs as experienced teachers approach retirement by arranging for advance training of replacement teachers, LEAs may respond only when the need for a replacement actually arises. An RNIB survey of LEA VI services found that in 2002, out of 367 specialist teachers employed by 79 LEAs in England, only 12 per cent were under the age of 40. Forty-five percent were aged 50 or over (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003).

There are concerns also about who will pay for professional development. This is important in view of research findings that have identified an on-going need for training of specialist teachers in topics such as teaching literacy and subjects such as mathematics through the medium of Braille (Keil, 2004a; Johnston, 2004).

Many of the concerns about delegation identified by RNIB have been highlighted by Ofsted in a recent report:

'The delegation of funding for support services had a negative effect on the provision for some pupils with SEN. It diminished the capacity of many LEAs to monitor the progress of pupils with SEN and reduced the range and quantity of specialist staff available to provide advice and support.' (Ofsted, 2005)

4.2 National standards for visual impairment support services

Despite the publication of national Quality Standards for Education Support Services for Children and Young People with Visual Impairment (DfES, 2002) there is no consistent standard of specialist support across LEAs, which suggests that the standards are not being implemented. Some support services are well organised, have a sufficient number of additionally qualified staff with an appropriate range of skills to meet the needs of all the pupils, and are committed to meeting the Quality Standards. However, there are also services that, for a variety of reasons are failing to meet the Quality Standards and, as these only carry a status of "strongly recommended", and are not mandatory there is no compunction upon local authorities to improve their educational provision for blind and partially sighted pupils.

4.3 The readiness of mainstream schools to admit and take responsibility for blind and partially sighted pupils, and the commitment of the LEA in promoting and supporting this

One of the most important factors for parents and pupils in ensuring a positive experience of school is having a class teacher who understands and is sensitive to the pupil's visual impairment needs. More than six in ten parents of blind and partially sighted pupils said that more support from their child's teacher would improve their child's life at school (Franklin et al, 2001). Despite SENDA, RNIB continues to hear of schools that are unwelcoming towards blind and partially sighted pupils. Rather than taking ownership of the pupils such schools regard them as the responsibility of the specialist support services. Clearly this approach must be challenged, and while many LEAs are committed through their policies and practices to promoting inclusive practice in all their mainstream schools, in others this does not appear to be a priority.

A well staffed and flexible central support service is able to support schools new to meeting the needs of blind and partially sighted pupils, and thereby increase the capacity of schools to become more inclusive. In some LEAs however, it would appear that rather than challenging practices that exclude pupils who are blind and partially sighted and enabling schools to make appropriate provision, the policy is to place all or most of their visually impaired pupils in additionally resourced schools. The reason often put forward for this placement policy is that all the specialist resources and staffing are provided in one school and that pupils with visual impairment have the opportunity to mix with others with a similar visual impairment. For many pupils this is a satisfactory compromise and in principle RNIB has no objection to the additionally resourced model where this is offered as one choice of placement. However, this policy is often resource led and in several LEAs it is offered as the only placement option. This is an issue of concern for parents who would prefer their child to be educated in their local mainstream school and a significant number have contacted RNIB for advice and support. Their reasons for challenging this position include one or all of the following:

· The school is located outside the local area, which denies the child opportunities to build up a network of local friends. This can lead to social isolation.

· The pupil is unable to attend the same school as their siblings.

· The pupil faces a long journey to and from school and is therefore more reliant upon local authority transport. As transport arrangements tend to be inflexible, such pupils are prevented from participating in out of school activities.

4.3.1 Pupils who use Braille

There are two issues relating to pupils whose primary literacy medium is Braille. These are: placement opportunities, specialist teaching and support for this aspect of the curriculum.

· In some local authorities, pupils who use Braille attend their local mainstream school while in others the policy is to place them in a mainstream resourced school or a special school for pupils with visual impairment. Data from 97 LEAs showed that the majority of braillists (71%) were being educated in the mainstream sector, although the proportion was higher for primary pupils (83%) than for secondary aged pupils (60%). More secondary aged (35%) than primary aged (9%) braillists were placed outside their LEAs. Overall a greater proportion of braillists (22%) was being educated outside their LEA compared with the rest of the visually impaired population (6%) (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2002). Decisions about educational placement may be made on the basis of VI service or local authority policy because the perceived challenge of fully meeting their needs in mainstream is too great. This appears to be the case particularly at secondary transfer. In other cases the decision is resource led for example, due to a shortage of sufficiently trained and experienced support staff.

· There is evidence that in many cases the responsibility for teaching literacy through Braille is given to teaching assistants, although this should clearly be the role of a qualified teacher (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2002, 2004a; Johnston, 2004).

4.3.2 Curriculum materials in accessible formats

There is research evidence that blind and partially sighted pupils do not always receive their school text books and other written materials in accessible formats at the same time as their sighted peers (Franklin et al, 2001). This is due to a number of reasons. These include the lack of readily available books in large print or Braille, insufficient forward planning when any access issues should be identified and appropriate action taken, too little or no preparation time to prepare the materials. and the lack of staff with the appropriate knowledge and skills to prepare materials to a high standard. Research looking specifically at provision of materials in Braille has found that reasons for delays include a shortage of "off the shelf" text books in Braille, production delays, the high cost of Braille texts, and a lack of co-ordinated information about availability (Jennings, 1998, 1999; Hopkins, 2001a, 2001b; Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2002).

The impact on a pupil not receiving their materials at the same time as their fully sighted peers is significant. The most frequent outcome is that adult support becomes necessary to compensate for the lack of accessible materials, thereby lessening the pupil's opportunities as an independent learner and creating a barrier to interaction with peers.

Cobb (2002, 2003, 2004), writing about issues relating to accessibility of examination papers for blind and partially sighted pupils has also raised concerns about the shortage of past test and examination papers in accessible formats.

4.3.3 Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

ICT has an increasingly central role in supporting pupils' learning both through e learning and the Internet as a major source of information. It is essential that the technology that is available to blind and partially sighted pupils keeps pace with mainstream developments. In addition, it has to be readily available to them in the same way as it is for their fully sighted peers e.g. homework clubs, school and public libraries.

4.3.3 Teaching assistants (TAs)

A substantial amount of support for pupils with visual impairment comes from staff who are not teachers but teaching assistants. Where practice is effective the role and responsibilities of the TA are clearly defined and understood by all involved, they receive appropriate training and support, there are opportunities for flexible deployment and they work in partnership with teachers (Balshaw and Farrell,2002) . In addition, where TAs are supporting children who are blind and partially sighted, it is crucial that the TAs are included in curriculum planning and are given time to prepare materials of a high quality. Input from a teacher of the visually impaired in the specialist aspects of the role should be given on a regular basis. If the knowledge, skills and experience that the TA builds up is to be retained and utilised a permanent contract is necessary as is a flexible approach to deploying the TA where their skills are most needed.

RNIB provides specialist training for TAs working with blind and partially sighted pupils and holds a national conference annually. Through our contact with TAs and specialist teachers across the country, a number of key issues of concern relating to the role of the TA have been identified. These are:

· The understanding of the role and the subsequent practice varies widely within and between schools and LEAs

· Many pupils are supported by TAs who have received little or no training, in either the general or specialist aspects of their role

· Many TAs are expected to take responsibility for the learning of the pupil, which should be the role of the class teacher

· There is no national career structure for TAs and for many there is limited job security as they are on temporary contracts.

· There is often no systematic review or evaluation of the input TAs provide.

4.3.4 Mobility education

For children and young people who are visually impaired, mobility and independence education is essential to give them the knowledge, skills and confidence to organise themselves and get about safely. Mobility and independence training supports blind and partially sighted children's development from early childhood, enabling them to be fully included at school, as well as in their home and social environments. However, across the country provision of mobility education is extremely patchy, with no one agency taking the lead responsibility for providing or funding it. The outcome is that many pupils are denied their full entitlement to mobility education. Of those who do receive mobility education, for many this is provided by mobility officers whose own training was in rehabilitation for adults rather than mobility for children (Franklin et al, 2001; Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003; Pavey, Douglas, McCall, McLinden and Arter, 2002; 2003).

5. Provision for SEN pupils in special schools

Following a national survey of LEA VI services, RNIB estimates that around one in three pupils with a visual impairment is being educated in maintained special schools for pupils with learning or physical disabilities. There is evidence to suggest that most, if not all of these pupils have additional complex needs including severe or profound and learning difficulties (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003; Keil, 2003).

However, RNIB believes that a far higher proportion of children with complex needs have a visual impairment than those identified in its survey of VI Services (Keil and Clunies-Ross 2003). Evidence to support this position comes from medical research that finds an increase in the numbers of children with a visual impairment and additional, non-ophthalmic disabilities (Rahi and Cable, 2003; Flanagan, Jackson and Hill, 2004). If only one in three visually impaired pupils with additional complex needs are known to VI services is possible that there are children in special schools whose visual impairment needs are not being met or may not have been identified.

The key concern with respect to provision for blind and partially sighted pupils who are placed in special schools is that a considerable proportion of these pupils do not receive adequate specialist educational support to meet their visual impairment needs. This may be because:

· Their visual impairment has not been identified.

· The implications of their visual impairment has not been recognised because of the severity of their learning, physical and/or medical difficulties.

· There is insufficient expertise within special schools and VI services to meet the needs of pupils with visual impairment and additional complex difficulties.

6. Raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils

It is not helpful to speak in terms simply of raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils because, as research has shown (e.g. Polat et al, 2001; Dewson et al, 2004) this is not a homogenous group. There are different issues for the different SEN and/or disability groups that are included within this label (Miller et al, 2005).

For pupils with visual impairment the main issues are:

· Any attempt to raise the standards of achievement of pupils with visual impairment must first address the issues of quality standards in terms of educational provision, and to the design and delivery of the curriculum.

· There is a lack of information about the attainment of blind and partially sighted pupils. QCA, DfES and the examination boards do not make this information publicly available.

· There are concerns that the examination system denies some visually impaired pupils the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding properly. Specific concerns are the difference in access arrangements for SATs up to Key Stage 3, and GCSE and other examinations at Key Stage 4 and above. For example, SATs papers can be opened one day in advance, allowing time to modify the papers to make them more accessible. For GCSE papers the maximum time allowed is one hour, which is an inadequate amount of time to make most papers more accessible. Modifications are often necessary in view of the fact that papers in large print are produced in a limited number of print sizes, which limits the range of alternative formats available for examinations. (See Cobb, 2002, 2003, 2004; Miller et al, 2005).

7. The system of statements of need for SEN pupils (the statementing process)

Statements continue to provide an essential framework for assessment and provision. Parents and schools may see them as the only means to guaranteeing additional provision for the child. Although the process is long, expensive and daunting for many parents until another system is put in place that ensures that additional provision will be guaranteed statementing, or a framework of a similar nature, continues to be necessary.

There is wide variation in the quality and clarity of statements and it is important to have a document that clearly sets out a pupil's needs and entitlements but at the same time is not overly prescriptive. This will enable professionals to use their discretion in responding flexibly as the pupil's needs change and the school becomes more confident and competent in taking ownership. Often there is insufficient clarity on a statement as to what constitutes support for the pupil. This can lead to differing expectations on the part of parents and schools and lead to unnecessary tensions. Statements should contain a clear definition of why additional support is needed and how it will be delivered so that everyone involved with the child will share the same understanding and be clear about the roles and responsibilities of the different staff concerned. For blind and partially sighted pupils it is essential that all support should promote opportunities for independent learning and not create barriers to the pupil's access to the teacher or to their interaction with their peers. It is essential, therefore, to include planning and preparation time on the statement, thereby ensuring that any additional support includes these activities.

8. The role of parents in decisions about their children's education

It is essential that the crucial role of parents is recognised and respected when decisions are being made about their child's education. Parents vary in the extent to which they want or are able to be involved in their children's education, but should always be given the opportunity to contribute fully. RNIB has some evidence that, despite there being a range of statutory services designed to support parents such as Parent Partnership and Dispute Resolution Services, they are not fully utilised by parents of visually impaired children for the following reasons: parents are not always aware of the services; those that do access them are not confident that they have the appropriate levels of knowledge of visual impairment and they are not always seen as independent of the LEA (Bunting, 2003)

8.1 Involving parents who speak little or no English

RNIB has evidence that whereas some LEAs have clear procedures for arranging an interpreter service for parents, in other LEAs professionals working with parents of young visually impaired children have had to manage without the support of an interpreter (Keil, 2005).

8.2 Key worker

A study investigating the post-16 transition experiences of blind and partially sighted young people in Wales found that the specialist teacher played a key role as link person between home and school (Keil, 2004b)

9. How special educational needs are defined

9.1 Data collection

Information published by DfES on numbers of pupils with SEN is based on data collected through the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census (PLASC). However, pupils are categorised by their 'greatest' primary and secondary needs only, and the published data on SEN is by primary need only (DfES, 2004). This approach underestimates the number of pupils with visual impairment because, as previously indicated, it is estimated that at least half of the population has additional disabilities and it is likely for many pupils that the visual impairment is registered as their secondary disability.

9.2 Low incidence nature of visual impairment

Visual impairment is a low incidence disability that requires a considerable investment in terms of resources and professional expertise. An underestimate in the official statistics of the visually impaired pupil population may therefore have important implications in terms of planning and organising educational provision.

An allied concern is that subsuming low incidence disabilities such as visual impairment within the SEN label carries with it the risk that policies may be driven by the needs of the majority. According to the official PLASC data, the majority SEN groups are pupils with moderate learning difficulties (MLD) and emotional, behavioural and social difficulties (EBSD). One example of a policy that appears to be dominated by the needs of the majority is the delegation of SEN budgets directly to schools. As discussed previously, a centrally organised and funded model where economies of scale can be applied better serves low incidence disability groups with high resource needs.

10. Provision for different types and levels of SEN, including emotional, behavioural and social difficulties (EBSD)

We question whether pupils with disabilities are best served by being classified under the general SEN heading, which encompasses such a diverse group of children and young people. We suggest that it would be better to follow the model recently adopted in Scotland, where a distinction is being made between pupils with disabilities and those with other types of need such as EBSD.

11. The legislative framework for SEN provision and the effects of SENDA

We are not aware that SENDA has had any noticeable effect on educational provision for children who are visually impaired. We suggest that part of the problem is that the Act has linked disability to existing SEN legislation and procedures, which continue to dominate through the statementing process and the SEN Code of Practice. The SEN framework focuses on a deficit view of the child with the result that the disability rights emphasis of SENDA has largely been disregarded.

As mentioned in the previous section, we suggest that England considers adopting the model recently introduced in Scotland, where a new framework based on the concept of 'additional support needs' separates disability from educational need and is intended to represent a more inclusive approach to children's learning by shifting the emphasis from children's weaknesses and problems. (See also, Miller, Keil and Cobb, 2005).

References

Audit Commission (2002) Special educational needs: a mainstream issue

Balshaw M and Farrell P (2002) Teaching assistants. Practical strategies for effective classroom support. London: David Fulton

Bunting J (2003) Review of RNIB's Advocacy Services unpublished internal report: RNIB

Cobb R (2002) 'Assessing the academic attainment of children with visual impairment in public tests and examinations' Paper presented to the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment, World Conference 2003, 3373

Cobb R (2003) 'The modification of examination questions for children with a visual impairment' Paper presented to the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment, World Conference 2003, 3737

Cobb R (2004) Establishing systems for assessing the academic attainment of children with visual impairment. RNIB/VICTAR, University of Birmingham, unpublished

Dewson S, Aston J, Bates P, Ritchie H and Dyson A (2004) Post-16 transitions: a longitudinal study of young people with special educational needs: wave two. DfES research report RR582. Institute of Employment Studies and University of Manchester for DfES.

DfES (2001) Special educational needs code of practice. November 2001, Ref: DfES 581/2001. Department for Education and Skills: Nottinghamshire

DfES (2002) Quality standards in education support services for children and young people with visual impairment. June 2002, Ref: LEA/0138/2002. Department for Education and Skills: Nottinghamshire

DfES (2004) National Statistics First Release (25 November 2004). Special educational needs in England: January 2004. SFR 44/2004. From DfES website: http://www.dres.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000448/index.shtml

Disability Rights Commission (2002) Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Part 4. Code of practice for schools. DRC: London www.drc-gb.org

Douglas G, Pavey S, McCall . S and McLinden M (2003) 'An investigation into the mobility and independence needs of children with visual impairment. Part 2: The delivery of the mobility and independence curriculum.' British Journal of Visual Impairment, May, 21, 2, pp. 47 - 54

Flanagan N M, Jackson A J and Hill A E (2003) 'Visual impairment in children: insights from a community based survey' Child: Care, Health and Development 2003, 29, pp. 493 - 499

Fletcher-Campbell F and Cullen M A (1999) Impact of delegation on LEA support services for special educational needs National Foundation for Educational Research: Berkshire

Franklin A, Keil S, Crofts K and Cole-Hamilton I (2001) Shaping the Future research report 2: The educational experiences of 5 to 16 year-old blind and partially sighted children and young people. London: Royal National Institute of the Blind

Gray P (2001) Developing support for more inclusive schooling: A review of the role of support services for special educational needs in English local education authorities DfEE and National Association for Special Educational Needs (NASEN): London

Hopkins L. (2001a.) Supporting literacy for visually impaired children: a report on ClearVision and National Library for the Blind Services

Hopkins L. (2001b.) Supporting literacy for visually impaired children: a report on children's reading services. November 2001. Commissioned by Calibre, ClearVision, National Library for the Blind and Royal National Institute for the Blind

Jennings J. (1998.) Print or braille? Decision making in the choice of primary literacy medium for pupils with a severe visual impairment. Full report: Education Department, University of Wales, Swansea, June 1998

Jennings J. (1999.) 'Print or braille? Decision making in the choice of primary literacy medium for pupils with a severe visual impairment'. The British Journal of Visual Impairment. 1997, 17: pp. 11-16

Johnston D (2004) 'I have mastered the Braille Code but no one has taught me how to teach it'. The British Journal of Visual Impairment. Vol. 22, No. 1, 2004, pp. 17 - 24

Keil S (2003) 'Survey of educational provision for blind and partially sighted children in England, Scotland and Wales in 2002'. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2003

Keil and Clunies-Ross (2003) Survey of educational provision for blind and partially sighted children in England, Scotland and Wales in 2002. Unpublished research report: Royal National Institute of the Blind.

Keil S with Clunies-Ross L (2002) Teaching braille to children. Unpublished research report: Royal National Institute of the Blind.

Keil S (2004) 'Teaching braille to children'. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 22, 1, 2004, pp. 13 - 16

Keil S (2004b) Moving on: how the process of transition to school sixth forms and colleges of further education in Wales is managed for students with visual impairment. Unpublished research report: Royal National Institute of the Blind: Wales

Keil (2005) Evaluation of the RNIB Early Excellence Partnership Project. (Unpublished internal RNIB research report)

Miller O, Keil S and Cobb R (2005) A review of the literature on accessible curricula, qualifications and assessment. London: Disability Rights Commission www.drc-gb.org.uk

Ofsted (2005) Inclusion: the impact of LEA support and outreach services

Pavey S, Douglas G, McCall S, McLinden M and Arter C. (2002) Steps to Independence: the mobility and independence needs of children with a visual impairment. Recommendations and summary report, London: RNIB on behalf of RNIB, Guide Dogs, Opsis, DfES and VICTAR.

Pavey S, Douglas G, McCall S, McLinden M and Arter C. (2002) Steps to Independence: the mobility and independence needs of children with a visual impairment. Full research report: the University of Birmingham (VICTAR) on behalf of RNIB, Guide Dogs, Opsis and DfES.

Pavey S, Douglas G, McCall S, and McLinden M (2003) 'An investigation into the mobility and independence needs of children with visual impairment. Part 1: The development of a mobility and independence curriculum framework.' British Journal of Visual Impairment, January, 21, 1, pp. 4 - 9.

Polat F, Kalambouka A, Boyle W and Nelson N (2001) Post-16 transitions of pupils with special educational needs. DfES research report 315

Rahi J S and Cable N (2003) 'Severe visual impairment and blindness in children in the UK' The Lancet 2003, 362, pp. 1359 - 1365

Teachernet (2003) Investigation into the funding of SEN provision in schools and education elsewhere: Final report Research commissioned by DfES, published on Teachernet website: www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/6086/ACF2019.doc

Wakefield V and Mackenzie S (2005) At the heart of inclusion: the role of specialist support for deaf pupils RNID: London

Wilkin A, Archer T, Ridley K, Fletcher-Campbell F and Kinder K (2005) Admissions and exclusions of pupils with special educational needs National Foundation for Educational Research for DfES. DfES research report RR608.

RNIB Submission to Education and Skills Select Committee on Special Educational Needs

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

2. RNIB's policy position on the education of blind and partially sighted pupils

RNIB believes that every pupil with a visual impairment is entitled to high quality education with equal access to appropriate specialist provision no matter where he/she lives within the UK.

3. Provision for SEN pupils in mainstream schools: availability of resources and expertise; different models of provision

The three key components that together promote the successful inclusion of pupils who are blind and partially sighted are:

· A coherent system of funding that promotes the organisation of high quality central support services. Of particular concern to RNIB is the drive towards greater delegation of SEN funds from central LEA control direct to schools. RNIB considers that this arrangement is inappropriate for low incidence SEN such as sensory impairments, which require a high degree of specialist teaching support and resources and due to economies of scale function better under a centrally organised and funded model.

· A national set of standards that are universally adopted by local authorities. Despite the publication of national Quality Standards for Education Support Services for Children and Young People with Visual Impairment (DfES, 2002) there is no consistent standard of specialist support across LEAs, which suggests that the standards are not being implemented.

· The readiness of mainstream schools to admit and take responsibility for blind and partially sighted children, and the commitment of the LEA in promoting and supporting this.

4. Provision for SEN pupils in special schools

A key concern with respect to provision for blind and partially sighted pupils who are placed in special schools other than those specifically for visually impaired children is that a considerable proportion of these pupils do not receive adequate specialist educational support to meet their visual impairment needs. This may be because:

· Their visual impairment has not been identified.

· The implications of their visual impairment has not been recognised because of the severity of their learning, physical and/or medical difficulties.

· There is insufficient expertise within special schools and VI services to meet the needs of pupils with visual impairment and additional complex difficulties.

5. Raising standards of achievement for SEN pupils

· There are concerns that the examination system denies some visually impaired pupils the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding properly.

6. The system of statements of need for SEN pupils (the statementing process)

· Statements continue to provide an essential framework for assessment and provision. Parents and schools may see them as the only means to guaranteeing additional provision for the child.

· There is wide variation in the quality and clarity of statements and it is important to have a document that clearly sets out a pupil's needs and entitlements but at the same time is not overly prescriptive.

7. The role of parents in decisions about their children's education

RNIB has some evidence that, despite there being a range of statutory services designed to support parents such as Parent Partnership and Dispute Resolution Services, they are not fully utilised by parents of visually impaired children.

8. How special educational needs are defined

· The published data on SEN is by primary need only. This approach underestimates the number of pupils with visual impairment because it is estimated that at least half of the population has additional disabilities and it is likely for many pupils that the visual impairment is registered as their secondary disability.

· Subsuming low incidence disabilities such as visual impairment within the SEN label carries with it the risk that policies may be driven by the needs of the majority.

9. Recommendations

· Delegation of SEN funding to schools should not apply to low incidence SEN such as visual impairment. LEA VI services should be organised and funded centrally.

· The national quality standards for education support services for children and young people with visual impairment should carry mandatory status.

· LEAs should play a proactive role in supporting mainstream schools to admit and take responsibility for blind and partially sighted pupils.

· There should be a national career structure for teaching assistants

· There should be a national training standard for teaching assistants with sufficient funding made available.

· Every blind or partially sighted child should have a statutory entitlement to a mobility assessment and training by a mobility officer qualified to work with children

· There should be a range of training opportunities for teachers working in the maintained special school sector and available funding to enable them to meet the needs of pupils with complex needs and/or learning difficulties.

· There should be a national strategy for the production of curriculum materials in accessible formats.

· There should be a full review of access arrangements in the light of the extension of the DDA to general qualifications to ensure convergence between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4.

· Examination papers should be made available in a wider range of alternative formats to reflect the range of need of pupils with visual impairments than is currently the case.

· There should be guidelines on the production of statements to ensure clarity and consistency.

For more information please contact:

Sue Keil Elizabeth Clery

Research Team Children's Services

RNIB RNIB 105 Judd Street 105 Judd Street London WC1H 9NE London WC1H 9NE

020 7391 2369 020 7391 2276

skeil@rnib.org.uk eclery@rnib.org.uk