University of Edinburgh
 

ASL Act: The role of HMIe

Young people with sensory impairments

Kate Hannah, HMIe

Key issues

What role do MH Intepctors of Education have in monitoring the implementation of the Act/Code?

What are the implications of these aspects for teachers of pupils with additional support needs including children and young people with a visual impairment?

  • Role of HM Inspectors in monitoring the implementation of the Act.
  • Request by SEED to monitor the roll-out of the Act.
  • Intelligence gathering exercise, not inspection.
  • Judging the basline of implementation (authorities at different starting points).
  • Writing up findings: possible published report.
  • Revisiting authorities in approx 18 monts to evaluate progress.

What have authorities been asked to do?

  • planning
  • transitional arrangements
  • implementation of SCPs
  • assessment and intervention strategies
  • transitions
  • development if MEDISRES.

Emerging strengths in authority preparations?

  • strategic approaches
  • joing working from outset
  • quality assurance procedures
  • role of psychologist
  • training – shared understanding of concept/implications
  • proactive MEDISRES
  • parents well informed.

Areas for development

  • Consulting with children and parents in meaningful way.
  • Lack of clarity about who is coordinatong CSPs at school level or timelines or clear procedures for transition.
  • Implementing an integrated assessment framework.
  • Quality assurance.
  • Provision for children under three with a disability.

Inspection: Implications for teachers of pupils with additional support needs?

  • CSP may be initiated by specialist in consultation with CSP coordinator, parents and pupils.
  • May respond to a request for assessmentfrom EA within 10 weeks if appropriate.
  • Transitions from RoN to CSP most likely to be done throught he review system Report/assessment.
  • Ensure parents are informed and aware of the change.
  • CSPs should contain a clear statement of resources and support to be implemented.
  • Relevant reports and IEP should be attached to the Plan.
  • Evidence of parent/child involvement in provision.
  • Joint working is a requirement. Sharing information. Develop a culture of collaboration.

Approaches to assessment, intervention, planning, provision and review should be clearly set out within a staged intervention process.

  • Provide information to an IA or tribunal.
  • 12 months prior to school leaving date contribute to transition plan.
  • Provision for disabled child under 3 years (S5)(2) and (3).
Best practice: inter-agency cooperation (Ch 3: COP)

Care and education staff had started to improve their approaches to joint planning to ensure a more holistic approach to meeting pupils’ care and educational needs.

High levels of teamwork were facilitated through regular multi-disciplinary meetings.

Mobility officers worked in partnership with staff to ensure consistency in approach throughout the school. This collaborative working was extended to reinforce skills and techniques with parents, mobility officers in home areas and staff in placements.

Best practice: views of parents, children and young people (Ch 6 COP)

A facilitator had been appointed to ensure that pupils had additional representation at review metings.

Effective systems were in place to facilitate pupils’ means of communication including translation and interpretation services.

Parents were fully consulted about their children’s IEPs.

Best practice: assessment and intervention (Ch3 COP)

The allocation of a period each week when pupils could discuss their progress with teachers helped ensure progress towards targets was monitored.

Staff made effective use of a wide range of information including pupils’ communication profiles to make carefully judged provision for individuals.

Pupils were able to demonstrate their writing skills to the best of their ability through the use of braille, large print texts, taped materials and ICT.

Weaknesses

However, pupils’ learning targets were not yet incorporated into the pupils’ care plans.

The school had not yet  involved parents in setting their child’s learning targets and had not provided advice on next steps in learning.

The school did not take sufficient account of pupils’ prior learning particularly at the transition stage.

Whole school approaches to supporting pupils did not take sufficient account of the needs of pupils with social and emotional difficulties.

The school did not consult pupils in a meaningful way about provision for meeting their learning needs.

Pupils with a disability had very limited opportunities for work experience.