Local authority Vision Impairment (VI) education service provision for blind and partially sighted children and young people

Report on findings from RNIB Freedom of Information (FOI) requests 2014

Sue KeilEvidence and Service Impact30 January 2015

Contents

Summary of findingsBackgroundKey findings

1. Introduction

2. Method

3. Findings3.1 Number of responses3.2 VI service management3.2.1 Managed within LA sensory service3.2.2 Managed within generic LA SEN service3.2.3 Managed as part of a separate VI service3.2.4 Other type of management arrangement3.3 VI service funding3.3.1 VI service funded centrally for all pupils3.3.2 Part central funding, part traded services or delegated budgets3.3.3 Delegated in full to a single school to provide outreach service or to

individual schools as part of full traded services agreement3.3.4 Other arrangements for funding the VI service3.4 Number of children and young people on VI service caseload3.4.1 Age range of children and young people on VI service caseloads3.4.2 Range of needs of children and young people on VI service caseloads3.4.3 Difference between 2013 and 2014 caseload figures3.4.4 Number of braillists3.5 Eligibility criteria for VI service support3.6 VI service staffing3.6.1 Qualifications of head of service3.6.2 Number of specialist (VI) teachers in England3.6.3 Teaching assistants3.6.4 Other staff employed directly by the VI service3.7 Recent changes to VI service organisation, provision or staffing3.7.1 Changes to the funding and/or organisation of VI services3.7.2 Staff posts lost since April 20133.7.3 Reduction in support for pupils with vision impairment3.7.4 Increase in support for pupils with vision impairment3.8 Proposed future changes to VI service organisation, funding or

provision for children3.8.1 Proposed changes to VI service organisation or funding

2

3.8.2 Proposals to reduce or withdraw VI service support to particular groups of children and young people

3.8.3 Proposals to increase VI service support to particular groups of children and young people

3.8.4 Proposals to reduce VI service staff posts in the future3.8.5 Proposals to increase VI service staff posts in the future3.9 Planned changes in response to the Children and Families Act 2014

and the new SEND Code of Practice3.9.1 Post-16 provision3.9.2 Consulting/working with/needs of CYP and families3.9.3 Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans3.9.4 Joint/multi-agency working3.9.5 Under review/service restructure3.9.6 Service delivery3.9.7 Relationships with schools3.9.8 Local Offer3.9.9 Not specified

4. Discussion4.1 Management and funding of VI services4.2 Professional leadership4.3 VI service staffing4.3.1 QTVI posts4.3.2 TA posts4.3.3 Other staff posts4.3.4 Future staffing4.4 Pupils with vision impairment: numbers and provision4.4.1 Numbers and characteristics of children and young people with VI4.4.2 Increases and reductions in provision4.5 Changes in response to the Children and Families Act 2014 and/or the

new SEND Code of Practice

5. Conclusion

References

3

Summary of findings

BackgroundIn June 2014 RNIB sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to all 152 local authorities (LAs) in England asking a range of questions about current and future education provision for children and young people with vision impairment.

This was the second RNIB FOI survey of LA educational provision for children and young people with vision impairment. The key service in co-ordinating and providing specialist support is the vision impairment (VI) education advisory service. Many VI services have been adversely affected by public sector cuts and a key aim of the first FOI request, sent in May 2013, was to benchmark existing provision in each LA against future policy decisions. The aim of this second survey was to monitor changes that may have taken place over the past year, and to find out whether there were any further changes planned in the near future. More specifically, we wanted to know what changes (if any) local authorities were proposing to make in response to the Children and Families Act 2014 and the new Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Code of Practice.

All of the 152 local authorities in England responded to the FOI request.

Key findings

The total number of children and young people aged 0-25 supported by VI services in 152 LAs in England in 2014 was 25,294. This is 404 fewer than identified in 2013.

o In some authorities the caseload is substantially higher than reported in 2013 while in others it is substantially lower. Reasons for the discrepancies include different/better methods of record keeping, tightening up of criteria for support (with greater use of the NatSIP scoring levels in 2014), and policy changes leading to increases or reductions in support to some groups of children.

787 braillists were identified compared to 840 that were reported in 2013. Two LAs failed to provide details of the number of braillists in 2014, but if we assume they had the same number as in 2013 we still have a reduction of 40 braillists.

o It is unclear why there has been a decrease in the number of braillists reported and this is something we plan to investigate further.

Some groups of CYP – in particular those with ‘mild’ VI who no longer meet the threshold for VI service support, and pupils with complex needs in special schools have had their VI service support reduced or withdrawn in some LAs over the past year. However, other LAs have increased support to certain

4

groups of pupils including pupils in special schools. This indicates that a reduction in support is not inevitable and that there may be innovative ways of continuing to support groups of pupils that other local authorities can learn from.

Some LAs are planning to increase support in the future for certain groups of CYP – in particular young people in post-16 settings. This is partly in response to the SEND reforms.

Despite the considerable financial pressures on local authorities it appears that in mid-2014 the majority of local authority VI services remained under local authority control in terms of both their management structure and funding arrangements. However, this overlays a more complex picture that is emerging of increasing fragmentation of services as a result of service reviews and restructures that have taken place over the past four years.

At the time of the survey several LAs were still in the process of reviewing or restructuring their VI service. The process of change appears to be ongoing, with approximately a third of LAs anticipating changes to the VI service over the next year.

A further 38 specialist staff posts are known to have been lost since 2013. These were mostly QTVI and TA posts.

536 teachers with a QTVI or QTMSI qualification were employed by 149 LAs in 2014, with a further 59 in training, and another 16 expected to begin training within the next two years. There were also 24 vacant QTVI posts.

o Comparing these figures with 2013, and including vacant posts and staff on the MQ (VI) course but excluding teachers not yet in training, there appear to be 27 fewer QTVIs employed (or potentially employed) in VI services in 2014 than in the previous year.

2,431 TAs supported pupils with VI in 148 LAs and of these, 537 were employed directly by the VI service. This compares with 3,208 TAs identified in 151 LAs in 2013, 572 of whom were employed directly by the VI service.

o There were 35 fewer TAs employed directly by VI services in 2014 compared to 2013

o There were 709 fewer TAs employed directly by schools identified in 2014 compared to 2013. This may not reflect an actual reduction in TAs as many LAs did not record the number of TAs supporting pupils with VI in schools

20 LAs were planning to increase the number of VI service staff posts in 2014/15 while 3 LAs were planning to reduce the number of posts

Over a third of LAs had changes planned for support for children and young people with VI in response to the implementation of the SEND reforms in September 2014.

5

o The requirement to extend specialist support to young people up to the age of 25 while in education (other than HE) and training was the main focus. Other considerations were:

The development of a Local Offer, for example by consulting with children and families and giving them a ‘voice’

The transition to EHC Plans Developing new ways of multi-agency working The effect of the reforms on the way that VI services would work

with schools in the future.

6

1. IntroductionIn June 2014 RNIB Campaigns sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to all 152 local authorities (LAs) in England asking a range of questions about current and future education provision for children and young people with vision impairment. This the second RNIB FOI survey of LA educational provision for children and young people with vision impairment.

The key service in co-ordinating and providing specialist support is the vision impairment (VI) education advisory service. Many VI services have been adversely affected by public sector budget cuts since 2010, and a key aim of the first FOI request, sent in May 2013 (Keil, 2014) was to benchmark existing provision in each LA against future policy decisions. The aim of the current survey was to monitor changes that may have taken place over the past year and in addition, to find out whether there were any changes proposed in response to the Children and Families Act 2014 and the new Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Code of Practice.

The findings from this FOI request will be used to support RNIB local and national campaigning to protect specialist education services and provision for children and young people with vision impairment.

2. Method

FOI questionnaires were sent to all 152 local authorities (LAs) in England. The breakdown of LAs by region is:

London: 33North West: 23South East: 19South West: 16Yorkshire and Humberside: 15West Midlands: 14North East: 12Eastern: 11East Midlands: 9

3. Findings

3.1 Number of responsesQuestionnaires were returned by all 152 local authorities (LAs) in England.

7

A small number of LAs, which commissioned VI service support from a neighbouring authority, or were members of a consortium, gave limited responses to some questions (for example, on staff numbers) indicating that this information was not available locally but could be provided by the lead authority. In such cases, we took the responses provided by the lead LA to represent the commissioning LA/other members of the consortium.

3.2 VI service managementIn 2013, 151 out of the 152 LAs had responded to this question as one LA had no children with vision impairment within the borough at that time. However in 2014 this LA did have a pupil requiring specialist support and the LA is therefore included in the 2014 figures. The VI service support was bought in from another authority.

The management arrangements recorded in table 1 represent the responses given by LAs in their completed questionnaires. However, the true picture is in fact more complicated. For example, some respondents reported that the VI service was part of a sensory service, although the sensory service itself was nested within a larger, SEN service or was provided by an external voluntary or private sector organisation; some members of a consortium of LAs reported this arrangement as an ‘other’ option while others selected the VI/sensory/SEN service option. These anomalies will be picked up and discussed under the individual sections.

These points aside, as we had found in 2013, the majority of VI services appear to have been under local authority control and managed as part of a central VI, sensory or other type of SEND service.

In around one in six LAs in 2014 (24), the VI service was managed under a different type of arrangement; this includes two LAs in which the service was managed by an external, non-public sector organisation. This is similar to the findings for 2013 in which a total of 25 LAs had another type of arrangement, including one LA where the VI service was under the management of an external, non-public sector organisation. (In fact, as reported in the 2013 report, additional information had revealed that in three LAs the VI service was managed by an external organisation, although only one of the three had reported this. In the 2014 questionnaire this same LA plus one other of the three had selected this option.) This is discussed further in 3.2.4 below.

8

Table 1: How VI services are managed in 2014 (England) (n=152)Number in 2013

% in 2013

Number in 2014

% in 2014

Within local authority sensory service

65 43.0% 72 47.4%

Within generic local authority SEN service

39 25.8% 38 25.0%

Separate local authority VI service 22 14.6% 18 11.8%Other 24 15.9% 22 14.5%Centrally managed by an external (non-public sector) agency

1 0.7% 2 1.3%

Total 151 100% 152 100%

3.2.1 Managed within LA sensory serviceIn just under half of LAs (47%) the VI service was managed as part of a sensory service. This is seven more LAs than in 2013.

It is clear from additional information provided though, that in some LAs the sensory team sat within a larger SEND team:

“Our Sensory Team is part of our Inclusion and Vulnerable Children team but retains managers for the HI and the VI teams.” (North West region)

Some LAs with a similar arrangement had selected the ‘other’ option, as will be discussed in 3.2.4 below.

Additional information provided by the LA whose quote is given below, indicates that although managed as a sensory team the VI services in this and a neighbouring LA sat within a less conventional overall management model:

“Since 1st April 2014, Children’s Services within [LA1] have been provided by a social enterprise company called [name]. This has not led to any changes in the way in which the VI service is funded or how it is operationally organised, however it is technically a joint service with [LA2] sensory service.” (London region)

3.2.2 Managed within generic LA SEN serviceIn a quarter of LAs (25%) the VI service was managed as part of a larger, generic SEN service within the local authority. In this LA there appeared to be a management and funding arrangement with both central and traded elements:

9

“[LA] has an Inclusion Disability Support Service which includes a number of centrally funded services: a Learner Support team of specialist inclusion teachers and HLTAs including QTVIs, Children with Disability Social Workers, Integrated Assessment teams and Educational Psychologists. IDSS also has a Traded arm, which includes QTVI, which sits at arm’s length and are commissioned by schools and early years settings.” (North West region)

3.2.3 Managed as part of a separate VI serviceIn 18 LAs (12%) the VI service was managed as a separate, stand-alone service. This is four fewer than in 2013. It is however, notable that two LAs from a consortium of four selected this option, while the other two LAs opted for ‘other’, explaining that they were managed by another LA as part of a joint arrangement.

3.2.4 Other type of management arrangementApproximately one in six (24) LAs had another type of management arrangement. We have included in this section, two LAs that were centrally managed by an external (non-public sector) agency.

9 had delegated management to a school or commissioned the service from a school or schools

8 bought in the service from another LA or were part of a joint commissioning/consortium arrangement (it is notable though, that not all members of the consortia concerned had chosen this option)

3 managed the service as part of a wider SEN service (that was different to the ‘generic’ LA SEN service option)

2 bought in the service from a charity or voluntary organisation 2 were centrally managed by an external (non-public sector) agency

Managed by a schoolNine LAs said that the management of the VI service had been delegated to, or commissioned from, a school or group of schools. This figure may be a slight underestimate as we know of three more LAs that also had this type of management arrangement, but had not recorded this on their questionnaires (giving instead, a different management option).

The response option selected by these LAs in their FOI response has been retained and is reflected in the numerical data in table 1 above, but their details have also been included in table 1a.

10

Table 1a: VI services managed by a schoolRegion Details of managementEastern Commissioned through a contract to be run by the [name]

Schools Trust… which is a group of schools in [LA]. [the trust] runs the service on behalf of [LA] across the whole of [LA].

Eastern Option C ‘managed as separate VI service’ was selected although the additional comment indicates that the service was: …” provided by [name] Co-operative Academy Trust.”

London LA commission [name] School to provide a Sensory Service for VI, HI and MSI.

London Managed by the special schools, based in [name] (SLD) School.London As part of [LA] Sensory Support Service which includes [name]

School, Hearing Support Service and Vision Support ServiceLondon Through a contract and service level agreement with the [name]

Academy TrustNorth East Within the Low Incidence Needs Service managed by a school

within the local authority.North East Option B ‘managed within LA sensory service was selected

although additional information indicates that the sensory service had been commissioned to a special school within the LA.

North West

Part of the Sensory Support Service run by [name] School for the Deaf

North West

Option 2 [sensory support service] has been selected but according to the LA website, VI support is delivered by the [name] sensory support service which is based at the [name] special school for communication and interaction

South East

‘Funding is devolved to a special school within each district and management is provided to the specialist teachers for VI at a district level as part of a team of specialist teacher for SEN. The management is provided by a district coordinator and the Head teacher of the special school. Funding for the strategic county team for sensory impairment is also devolved to one of the special schools and managed by the Head teacher. This team provides professional leadership to the specialist teachers for sensory impairment and directly line manages all of the sensory staff who are not specialist teachers.’

Commissioned from another LA/joint arrangement with other LA(s)Eight LAs said that the VI service was commissioned from another authority or that it was part of a joint commissioning/consortium arrangement. As already noted, this figure under-represents the number of LAs that were part of a

11

consortium as some members had selected another option. Table 1b therefore, includes all LAs that are part of a consortium arrangement.

Table 1b: Consortiums/joint arrangements/bought in by another serviceRegion Number of local authorities in

consortium/joint arrangementWest Midlands 2London 2London 5South East 6South West 3South West 4North East 4East Midlands 2

Managed as part of a wider SEN serviceThree LAs that had selected the ‘other’ option provided additional information indicating that they were part of a wider SEN service, which they considered different to the option we had provided: ‘within generic LA SEN service’. Here are their comments:

“Sensory, ASD, Child Development, Educational Psychology.” ( North West region)

“Dedicated VI team as part of Special Educational Needs Support Services, SENSS.” (South East region)

“LA sensory team located within generic LA SEN service.” (West Midlands region)

Managed by an external organisation (voluntary sector or private)In four LAs the VI service was managed by an external organisation. For three of the LAs this arrangement was the same as in 2013. The fourth LA, however, had been managed within the LA sensory service in 2013.

3.3 VI service fundingAs can be seen from table 2, four out of five LAs (81.6%) in England were centrally funded by the LA for specialist support for all pupils with vision impairment. This is a similar picture to 2013, with only a very small number of LAs appearing to have changed to a traded service arrangement for some pupils, or to have delegated all or part of the budget to a VI resourced school in the LA.

12

Table 2: How VI services are funded in 2014 (England) (n=152)Method of funding Number

in 2013% in 2013

Number in 2014

% in 2014

Centrally funded by the LA for specialist support for all pupils with VI

124 82.1% 124 81.6%

Centrally funded by the LA for high need (statemented) pupils and 'traded services' for all other pupils

2 1.3% 4 2.6%

Delegated in part to individual mainstream schools with VI resource provision to fund all support and resources for VI pupils within those schools

3 2.0% 6 3.9%

Delegated in full to a special or mainstream school with VI resource provision that then provides outreach to other schools

5 3.3% 6 3.9%

Delegated in full to individual schools in the LA who purchase specialist support from the LA under 'traded services' arrangement

- - - -

Other 17 11.3% 12 7.9%Total 151 100% 152 100%

However, as with the question on VI service management, some respondents appear to have had difficulty in deciding which funding category to opt for and some of those recorded as ‘other’ are, in fact, examples of partial or full delegation. Two LAs have been reassigned from their chosen option to a category that more accurately represent the funding arrangement as it is clear from their comments that their original choice was inaccurate:

“Funded centrally and allocated to all pupils with VI.” (North West region)

“Centrally funded payment to [LA] as part of joint arrangements. Delegated funding to one secondary school for VI resource base.” (North East region)

13

3.3.1 VI service funded centrally for all pupilsWhile over four in five LAs said that the VI service was centrally funded for all pupils, it is evident that several who had selected this option, nevertheless had a more complex funding arrangement in operation which included a traded service and/or delegated budget element:

“IDSS is centrally funded for Early Years children and school aged School Action Plus work with school aged CYP with VI. QTVIs will also carry out any necessary assessments required for statutory assessment request. IDSS also has a Traded arm, which includes QTVI, which sits at arm’s length and are commissioned by schools who have delegated money for CYP with Statements including VI.” (North West region)

“Also [‘other’ option] There is a traded service with [LA] Colleges for Post-16 support'. (South East region)

“DSG funding is devolved to special schools for the delivery of peripatetic VI services. Services provided by VI resourced provision is delegated in full through Elements1, 2 and 3 of the SEN funding. Mobility and habilitation services for children and young people are commissioned through an SLA with a voluntary organisation. This is jointly funded by Education and Social Care for service delivery in the home, school and community.” (South East region)

“Approximately 93% of funding for the VI service is centrally retained DSG funding. See A above. A nominal amount (approx. 7% of budget) is also delegated to schools as part of a wider service level agreement forSEN Support Services.” (West Midlands region)

3.3.2 Part central funding, part traded services or delegated budgetsTen LAs (6.5%) had a combination of central funding to some pupils and either a traded services or delegated budget arrangement for others. However, from the additional information provided by a few LAs that had selected the ‘other’ option it would appear that the real figure is a little higher.

“Partly centrally funded by the LA with delegated funding to individual schools who purchase specialist services.” (East Midlands region)

“Centrally funded. VI with no additional needs are supported by a QTVI managed by a school. Those with MDVI are funded by the local authority via a Service Level Agreement with the local special school.” (North East region)

14

“A centrally funded service for advice and oversight, with a service level agreement for direct teaching.” (North West region)

“Centrally funded for the VI Team supporting children in mainstream and specials schools with delegated funding to 2 Secondary Resource bases not managed centrally by Sensory Team.” (South East region)

“From April 2013, the majority of the funding for the VI service provision is funded centrally by retained Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) ‘High Needs Block funding’. As part of the 2013-14 reforms, the Department for Education introduced a new framework for funding provision for children and young people with high level needs, including special educational needs (SEN), learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD) and those requiring alternative provision (AP). As a result individual Mainstream Schools/ Academies who have the VI Resource located on their site are given funding of £10,000 per pupil per annum for all the available places at the respective Resource, which represents: - £4,000 is to meet the basic education costs for the pupil; this covers not only basic teaching costs but also premises, normal curriculum supplies and any other normal activity costs the school incurs. This amount is retained by the respective School/ Academy. £6,000 relates to the additional costs incurred in order to support a pupil’s additional educational need. This amount is reimbursed by the respective School/ Academy to the LA to deliver the VI service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

3.3.3 Delegated in full to a single school to provide outreach service, or to individual schools as part of full traded services agreement

Six LAs (4%) said the VI service budget had been delegated in full to a school that then provided an outreach service to other schools. An additional three LAs that had selected the ‘other’ option provided additional information that indicated they also, had delegated their budgets to schools:

“Delegated in full to [name] Special Schools.” (London region)

“The Sensory Service in [LA] has been commissioned to a special school within the LA, to provide specialist services to VI/Blind children. We receive our budget in full and this is directly spent on both HI/VI services.” (North East region)

“Delegated in full to [name] School.” (North West region)

15

3.3.4 Other arrangements for funding the VI serviceAs already indicated, most LAs that had selected the ‘other’ option to describe their arrangement for funding the VI service have already been accounted for under the previous headings. Of those that remained:

2 LAs indicated that the funding came under a different SEN budget One said that the service was externally commissioned to another LA One gave no further details

3.4 Number of children and young people on VI service caseloadsIn 2013 caseload information was provided by 151 LAs. This included two very small LAs that both gave a 'nil' return. Only one LA had failed to provide caseload information.

In 2014 caseload information was provided by all 152 LAs including the two that had given a ‘nil’ return in 2013. One of these LAs now had a very small caseload while the second again gave a ‘nil’ return. In 2013 a single caseload figure had been requested but for the 2014 survey we requested a breakdown of the caseload into four age bands. All but three LAs provided a breakdown by age.

Table 3: Number of children and young people with vision impairment on VI service caseloads in 2014 by age and region (n=148 by age and n=152 for total caseload)Region Number

aged 0-4Number aged 5-16

Number aged 17-19

Number aged 20-25

Total caseload*

East Midlands 298 1682 166 30 2176Eastern 286 1583 169 16 2333London 606 2925 337 37 4038North East 228 884 77 3 1192North West 634 3075 309 15 4033South East 576 2701 197 19 3493South West 363 1694 174 3 2234West Midlands 402 2242 184 17 3179Yorkshire and Humberside 540 1768 98 2 2616Total 3933 18554 1711 142 25294Note: The total caseload figures are based on data provided by 152 LAs. As 3 LAs were unable to provide a breakdown by age the totals of columns 2-5 add up to less than the total caseload figure given in the final column.

As can be seen in table 3, the total number of children and young people between the ages of 0-25 supported by VI services in England was 25,294. The range of

16

children and young people supported by VI services varied both in terms of age and of severity of vision impairment.

3.4.1 Age range of children and young people on VI service caseloadsThirty-seven LAs had young people aged 20-25 on their caseload; a total of 142 young people were known to be in this age group.

“20-25 - * Please note these students are not on Service caseload but are part of [name] our Traded Service Provider for VI/HI/MSI students in continuing education).” (West Midlands)

Some services, while apparently supporting young people beyond the age of 19 were unable to provide numbers for this age group:

“Numbers for 20+ unknown.” (2 LAs, London region)

“20-25 numbers aren't collected.” (South East region)

Others however, were clear that they did not support this age group, while sometimes for those aged 17 to 19 the type of setting they were in determined whether or not the service supported them:

“20-25 not supported.” (North East region)

“Support provided to 19, not beyond.” (London region)“Currently only support school age.” (Eastern region)

“[17-19]…currently we only work with this age range in LA Sixth forms or Special Schools.” (North East region)

3.4.2 Range of needs of children and young people on VI service caseloadsAs we have found in previous surveys, there was wide variation between LAs in the range of children and young people included on VI service caseloads. In some LAs a distinction was made between children and young people on the ‘active’ caseload and those who received advice or monitoring only; others differentiated between groups of pupils on the basis of type or level of need, or the type of setting they were in. It was not always clear from the responses given which groups of children had been included and which had been omitted from the caseload figures.

“…The CYP in Learner Support have a range of difficulties from mild to high level needs and therefore receive services from light touch one off visits to weekly input depending on need. The Traded Team are bought in by

17

schools and offer a range of support depending on request, level of need and Statement of SEN.” (North West region)

“These numbers from [LA] include ‘advice only’ pupils.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Active caseload – 208. Advice (ie. open but no active involvement currently) – 304. We are unable to access our database currently to break down the active caseload figure into the age groups you’ve specified as our system is being updated.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“[Includes only] The numbers of children on the ACTIVE caseload (therefore not including those children designated as ‘Request Only’ (where the service has assessed the child’s needs and determined that ongoing support is not appropriate but there may be times when support is required; or where support may be required at a later date)…” (West Midlands region)

“In addition, we have a further 43 children and young people, known to the Service, with low level needs for whom we have provided advice and information only to the schools concerned.” (London region)

“This data is for children and young people with moderate, severe or profound visual impairment.” (South East region)

“Please note, I have excluded 58 children who are in the [LA] school for children with complex needs as they have their own QTVI and MSI teachers.” (London region)

“Numbers are both mainstream and specialist schools.” (South East region)

3.4.3 Difference between 2013 and 2014 caseload figuresThe total number of children and young people on VI service caseloads was 404 fewer than the number identified in 2013. Our first question was whether this was because some LAs had raised their threshold for VI service support, thus omitting from the 2014 totals children that had been included in the 2013 count. However, a comparison of the figures for each LA individually showed a more complicated picture. In some LAs there had been substantial increases in caseload numbers but in others there had been considerable decreases. While many VI services had lost or gained a small number of children over the year (which would be expected) some were reporting caseloads that had apparently doubled in size since 2013 while others appear to have reduced their caseload numbers by a quarter or a third. For example, in one LA the number reported in 2013 was 361 children and

18

young people, but by 2014 this had apparently fallen to 149 – a ‘loss’ of 212 children! Conversely, another LA reported 30 on the VI service caseload in 2013 but by 2013 this had increased to 97.

To try to get an understanding of the reasons for these discrepancies we spoke to several heads of services where changes had been identified. One explanation for an apparent reduction in the size of the caseload was that the 2013 figure had included children on the inactive caseload, whereas in 2014 only those children who were receiving regular support from the VI service had been counted.

Several people explained that record keeping had recently improved with the effect that the young people who were no longer supported by the service because they had moved into post-school settings, or children with mild conditions (such as monocular) who had previously remained on a QTVI’s caseload now had their cases closed more quickly.

Better record keeping combined with greater clarity about entitlement to support, using the NatSIP allocation levels to determine criteria for support, was put forward as a likely explanation by some other heads of services.

One head of service had – in error - failed to include pupils with complex needs from the caseload total.

As far as an increase in caseloads is concerned, explanations included policy changes leading to support for particular groups of children who had previously not met VI service criteria. For example in one LA a change in management meant that the threshold for support had been lowered; under the previous management, extremely strict criteria had been applied. At least two VI services whose caseloads had increased were now providing support to pupils with complex needs in special schools who had not been receiving input from a QTVI. Several people also commented on a recent increase in referrals for babies and very young children, including referrals of blind babies.

As we did not speak to every local authority concerned there may be other explanations for the change in size of caseloads and we cannot rule out a raising of the threshold for support as the reason for a reduction in some LAs. We will review this question in 2015 when the next FOI survey is carried out.

3.4.4 Number of braillistsTwo LAs failed to respond to our question about the number of braillists on VI service caseloads. Both LAs had provided this information in 2013, at which time one of the LAs had four braille users and the second had nine.

19

Our figures are therefore from 150 out of 152 LAs, and from their responses a total of 787 braillists was identified. This compares with 840 known to 149 LAs in 2013, a reduction of 53. If we include the 13 braillists in the two non-responding LAs to the 2014 total we still have 40 fewer braille users than in 2013, which is a surprisingly large reduction, particularly as some LAs had commented on a recent increase in referrals for children who are/will be learning braille.

Table 4: Number of children and young people on VI service caseloads in 2014 who used (or in the case of EYFS children, were expected to use) braille as their sole or main literacy medium (n=150 LAs)LA region Number of

CYP braillists

Braillists as % of VI population in each region

East Midlands 75 3.4%Eastern 94 4.0%London 104 2.6%North East 21 1.8%North West 123 3.0%South East 138 4.0%South West 55 2.5%West Midlands 51 1.6%Yorkshire and Humberside 126 5.25Total 787 3.1%Notes: 1. Population data from the 2 missing LAs has been excluded from the percentage calculation. 2. The proportions are approximate as the numbers may exclude some braillists, i.e. those who were not on the VI service caseloads.

We know that some LAs – such as the one whose quote is given below - may have excluded braillists who were attending special or resourced schools for pupils with vision impairment, or were being educated outside the borough:

“[Zero] None who are educated within the borough (2 children out of borough in specialist school for VI children, 1 Early Years child in pre-school setting out of borough).” (North West region)

Although it is clear that some LAs did include such pupils:

“[5] 1 in school and 2 preschoolers and then another 2 who are in a specialist out of area school.” (North West region)

We plan to undertake a more detailed comparison of the 2013 and 2014 FOI responses to identify the LAs that appear to have ‘lost’ braillists from their caseloads over this period and to explore the reasons.

20

Additional information provided by some respondents gives us further insight into the type of pupils who were learning to read braille, several of whom had experienced sudden onset sight loss or whose sight was deteriorating:

“4 braille users on the case list i.e. 3 in local resourced provision including 1 who has only recently lost his sight and 1 in special school learning pre-braille skills prior to Braille alphabet. Also 2 braille users in out of county FE provision no longer included on our case list.” (South East region)

“[3]1 primary aged braillist. 1 primary aged print user transitioning to Braille, living in County but attending mainstream school in neighbouring County with support bought in from the neighbouring authority’s VI Service. 1 primary aged print user transitioning to Braille.” (East Midlands region)

“At present I would say there are 2 definite - long term (and 2 beginning to dabble) with serious sudden sight loss.” (London region)

“[including] 5 [early years] Braille users with 2 more potential because of deteriorating conditions.” (North West region]

“…+ 1 mover in for September – year 3 totally blind child with no English.” (South West region)

3.5 Eligibility criteria for VI service supportMost LAs (85%) used some form of the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) criteria to determine eligibility for levels of specialist support from the VI service, although the overall number has decreased by four LAs since 2013.

Only 22 LAs did not use NatSIP criteria, and of these:

14 used locally developed criteria 3 used a banding system 4 used local criteria and a banding system 1 did not give details

Two thirds (66%) of LAs that used NatSIP criteria used the most recent (2012) version, and over half (56.6%) of all LAs used this version. Just under one in three (28.9%) used a modified version of the NatSIP/SERSEN criteria, while four LAs used an earlier version.

“NatSIP used in conjunction with professional judgement.” (North West region)“Moving to include locally developed criteria.” (South West region)

21

“We use the NatSIP Eligibility Criteria for Scoring Support Levels (2012) with locally agreed levels of support. We also collect children’s progress data (P and National Curriculum levels) to target support within the levels determined by the NatSIP criteria….” (East Midlands region)

Table 5: Criteria used by VI services to determine eligibility for specialist support (multiple responses) (n=152)Criteria No. %NatSIP Eligibility Criteria for Scoring Support Levels (2012)

86 56.6%

An earlier version of the NatSIP/SERSEN Eligibility Criteria

4 2.6%

Modified NatSIP/SERSEN criteria 44 28.9%Banding system 22 14.5%Locally developed criteria 39 25.7%Other arrangement 2 1.3%The (Wales) Visual Impairment Pathway - -

A quarter of LAs used locally developed criteria, with just over half of these LAs (21) using the local criteria alongside NatSIP criteria.

“[Modified NatSIP and Banding)] Banding - for CYP with statement.” (North West region)

Twenty-two LAs used a banding system, in most cases (15) this was in addition to the NatSIP criteria.

“[NatSIP 2012, Banding, and Locally Developed Criteria] Banding in special schools...” (South West region)

Only two LAs used other criteria but neither provided further details.

3.6 VI service staffingAs discussed in 3.2, not all LAs had their own VI service as some bought support in from a neighbouring authority or were part of a consortium. We have therefore treated the response from the commissioned/lead LA as representing the commissioning authority or consortium members where it was not possible for these LAs to provide the relevant information.

It was not possible to do this for one LA that bought in support as the respondent did not give the name of the LA concerned (i.e. the commissioned LA). The

22

information detailed in this section is therefore based on responses from 151 local authorities.

3.6.1 Qualifications of head of serviceWe asked what qualifications were held by the person with responsibility for strategic management of the VI service and in just under two thirds (96) of LAs the head of service was a QTVI. In 33 of the remaining 55 LAs the HOS held a teaching qualification for teaching children with sensory impairment:

32 were teachers of the deaf (TOD) 1 was a QTMSI

Table 6: Qualifications held by the person with responsibility for strategic management of VI services in England in 2014 (n=151*) (Multiple responses)Qualification Number %Qualified teacher of pupils with vision impairment (QTVI) (i.e. holds the mandatory qualification (MQ) in VI)

96 63.6%

Qualified teacher of the Deaf (TOD)(i.e. holds the mandatory qualification (MQ) in HI)

41 27.2%

Qualified teacher of pupils with Multi-sensory Impairment (MSI)(i.e. holds the mandatory qualification (MQ) in MSI)

10 6.6%

Other qualifications 48 31.8%Note: Some heads of service had more than one qualification, which is why the total exceeds 151.

This leaves 22 LAs in England (14.5%) with a head of service who was not a qualified teacher of children with vision, hearing or multi-sensory impairment. Only five of these LAs gave details of the qualifications held by the VI/sensory service manager – as can be seen from the list below there was a variety of qualifications, not all related to education:

QTS (qualified teacher status) (West Midlands region) BSc MSc PGCE 3 year MSI training (North West region) BEd hons degree (SEN)/SEN certificate/SEN diploma/Speech & Language

certificate (Yorkshire and Humberside region) Educational Psychologist MA (East Midlands region) MA Social Work (East Midlands region) SLCN (South West region)

In contrast, the head of service in other LAs had a range of qualifications in addition to being a QTVI, including post graduate special education and management qualifications.

23

3.6.2 Number of specialist (VI) teachers in EnglandIt should be emphasised that the figures presented in this section relate only to teachers employed directly by LA VI/sensory services. It includes a small number of teachers managed by the VI service but based in resourced schools. It excludes teachers employed directly by resourced, special, and VI special schools and therefore does not represent the total number of QTVIs and QTMSIs in England.

A total of 537 teachers with the mandatory qualification for teachers of children with vision impairment (QTVI) or multi-sensory impairment (QTMSI) were employed directly by the VI/sensory service in 149 LAs in England (although one QTMSI is not counted in tables 7 and 8 as they were also in training as a QTVI). Three LAs did not respond to this question. One of the three belongs to a consortium and it is possible the staffing numbers are included within the lead LA’s figures, but as other members of the consortium have provided figures this cannot be assumed. A second LA declined to provide information on the numbers of QTVIs and those in training by citing the Data Protection Act, as the numbers were between 0-3. (In the previous RNIB FOI survey in 2013, the three LAs between them employed ten QTVIs.)

Although we asked for numbers of staff as full time equivalent (FTE) as well as the individual people employed, not all LAs provided this information. It is therefore important to be aware that the FTE figures in table 7 under-represent the true numbers.

In a few LAs, individual members of staff held both the QTVI and QTMSI qualifications and were employed in both roles; consequently there had been some duplication of numbers. We have therefore created a new category of ‘dual QTVI/MSI’ to account for these individuals.

Additionally, one LA had double counted a QTMSI who was also in training for the MQ (VI). We have therefore represented this person in tables 7 and 8 as a QTVI in training and not as a QTMSI to avoid double counting. The number of QTMSIs is therefore under-represented by one person.

A second LA noted that one of the QTVIs in the service was currently in the first year of the MQ (MSI) training – again this person has only been counted once.

Table 7: Numbers of teachers employed directly by VI services in England (this includes peripatetic/advisory and school based teachers (n=149 LAs)

Number of teachers

Number as full time equivalent (FTE)

24

QTVI with mandatory qualification (MQ) (VI)

496 397.00

In training for MQ (VI) 59 41.80

Qualified teachers without MQ (VI) who will begin training within 2 years

16 11.90

Qualified teachers without MQ (VI) not in, or due to begin training within 2 years

4 1.00

QTMSI with MQ (MSI)** 33 19.40Dual QTVI/QTMSI 7 2.8Total in post 615 473.90

QTVI vacancies currently advertised 20 16.5QTVI vacancies – advertised but no suitable applicants

4 2.5

Total 639 492.90*This figure is an underestimate as some LAs did not provide staff numbers as FTE.**One person has been omitted from the QTMSI total to avoid double counting, as they are QTMSI and currently training as QTVI.

In total therefore, 496 QTVIs and seven dual qualified QTVI/QTMSIs were employed directly by 149 VI/sensory services in England in 2014 with a further 59 in training, bringing the total to 562. Thirty-three QTMSIs were also identified (one of whom, as already mentioned, was currently training as a QTVI and has therefore been omitted from the QTMSI figures to avoid double counting them), plus a further 16 teachers who were expected to begin training for the MQ (VI) within the next two years. This means that in total, 536 teachers with a QTVI or QTMSI qualification were employed by VI/sensory services in England in 2014, with a further 75 either in training, or expected to begin training within the next two years.

Only four teachers were identified who were neither trained nor expected to start training within the next two years.

There were also 24 vacant QTVI posts, four of which had been advertised but no suitable candidates found.Table 8: Numbers of teachers employed directly by VI services in England 2013 and 2014

2013 (n=151 LAs)

2014(n=149 LAs)

QTVI with mandatory qualification (MQ) (VI)

540 496

25

In training for MQ (VI) 57 59

Qualified teachers without MQ (VI) who will begin training within 2 years

18 16

Qualified teachers without MQ (VI) not in, or due to begin training within 2 years

5 4

QTMSI with MQ (MSI) 33 33Dual QTVI/QTMSI n/a 7Total in post 653 615

QTVI vacancies currently advertised 10 20QTVI vacancies – advertised but no suitable applicants

6 4

Total 669 639

Comparing these figures with 2013 (table 8) there appear to be fewer QTVIs employed in 2014 than in the previous year. This is discussed in further detail in section 3.7.2.

3.6.3 Teaching assistantsThe information in table 9 was provided by 148 LAs. Three LAs failed to provide any information about the number of TAs supporting pupils with vision impairment in their area. One of the LAs concerned provides the VI service for another four LAs including the other two that did not respond to this question. It is possible that one of the non-responding LAs misunderstood the question as they gave the number of pupils rather than the number of TAs:

"107 students have access to TA support – TAs supported by VI Service." (London region)

A fourth LA gave a ‘nil’ response to the questions in this section as it had no VI service.

The number of TAs supporting pupils with vision impairment identified by the 148 LAs was 2,431. It is important to be aware that this figure does not represent the total number of TAs supporting pupils with VI. That is because it excludes TAs in special schools for blind and partially sighted pupils, or in VI resourced schools not connected to the VI service. In addition, the figures that respondents were able to provide were not always accurate – in particular, many LAs had difficulties in providing the number employed directly by schools and were either unable to provide the figures at all or had to estimate them. Finally, many LAs were unable to provide the number of TAs as FTE and this figure therefore, is an under-representation.

26

The total number of TAs identified in 2014 is also 777 fewer than were identified in 2013. The decrease however, is in the number of TAs employed directly by schools rather than by those employed centrally by the VI service. This will be explored further in the following sections.

Table 9: Numbers of teaching assistants (TAs) in LAs in England in 2014 who were providing support to pupils with vision impairment (n=148)

Number of TAs

Number as full time equivalent (FTE)*

Employed and recruited directly by VI service – centrally based/peripatetic 391 274.43Employed and recruited directly by VI service – school based 146 110.16Employed and recruited directly by schools and supported by VI service** 1662 758.70Employed and recruited directly by schools with no involvement from VI service** 187 22.00Other arrangement 45 19.80Total 2,431 1,185.09*Incomplete data as some LAs were unable to provide numbers as FTE**Incomplete data as many LAs had to guess the number of TAs employed by schools, or were unable to provide figures.

TAs employed centrally by the VI service (peripatetic or school based)A total of 537 TAs were identified who were employed centrally by the VI service, and of these just over a quarter (146) were school based. The number of posts as FTE was 384.59. This compares with 572 TAs employed centrally by the VI service in 2013, over a third (37%) of whom were school based. Since 2013 therefore the number of centrally based TAs appears to have been reduced by 35. However, as discussed later in this report (3.7.2) according to the information provided to us by LAs the number of TA posts that have been lost since 2013 is around 14 (the actual figure given is 13.9). The reason for this discrepancy is unknown.According to the information provided, just over one in five (22%) TAs in England in 2014 were employed by the VI service but the true proportion is likely to be less as the number of TAs employed directly by schools is an under-representation.

In two thirds of LAs (99) TAs were employed centrally by the VI service and in six of these LAs the TAs were exclusively school based. In the remaining 93 LAs all or most of the centrally employed TAs were based within the VI/sensory service or were peripatetic.

27

Very little additional information was provided on centrally based TAs other than to clarify the hours worked as some TAs were employed during term time only, or to give further details about how the post was funded or set up:

“26 HLTAs who work within [Early Years Learner Support] service and offer support within settings/Portage. Employed by [Inclusion Disability Support Service].” (North West region)

“1.2 FTE - half of this is spent with HI pupils.” (South West region)

TAs employed and recruited by schoolsSixty-three LAs gave figures on the number of TAs that were employed and recruited by schools but supported by the VI service, and of these not all were able to provide the precise number of TAs. From the information provided by the 63 LAs a total of 1,662 TAs were identified. This compares with the 2,436 TAs identified by only 43 LAs in 2013. This huge discrepancy could mean that the overall number of TAs supporting children and young people with vision impairment in schools has reduced over the period of one year. A more likely explanation is that with the increasing delegation of responsibility to schools, VI services are becoming less able to keep track of the TAs in schools that are outside of the direct control of the LA or VI service.

Looking at TAs employed and recruited directly by schools but with no involvement from the VI service, figures were provided by nine LAs which identified a total (estimated) of 187 TAs. This is 65 TAs more than the 122 identified by 12 LAs in 2013.

Overall therefore, the number of TAs employed and recruited directly by schools (with or without VI service involvement) to support pupils with vision impairment in 2014 was 1,849 which is a reduction of 709 since 2013 (when fewer LAs reported on numbers of TAs employed directly by schools). We cannot however, be certain that this is an actual reduction in numbers as it may be due to fewer LAs holding this information centrally – it was very clear from respondents’ comments that many LAs did not hold this information, or held only partial information. As already stated, the figures presented in this report are therefore an estimate only.

Here is a selection of quotes to give a flavour of what LAs were saying about why they were unable to provide precise details of numbers of TAs employed by schools:

“Unknown if there are any school employed/based TAs.” (East Midlands region)

28

“Difficult to give figures of school employed as most do not work just with VI pupils. All staff working with pupils on our caseload will receive support from QTVI.” (East Midlands)

“We are unable to provide accurate data for this section as we do not employ staffing resources identified through the Statutory Assessment process.” (Eastern region)

“Children are supported by TAs employed by the school but this information is not on file centrally.” (London region)

“We do not hold a record of which schools employ a TA to work with a specific person. There are 17 specialist TAs employed by the 3 bases in the area.” (North East region)

“Estimate approximately 7 TAs delegated through national SEN and statements.” (North West region)

“34 in VI resource provisions. [FTE] Info not available as employed by Schools not [LA].” (South East region)

“No change from last year in terms of allocation so no changes anticipated beyond variation due to pupil numbers. Information has been requested from mainstream colleagues but we won’t have full figures in time to respond to this FOI request.” (South East region)

“Please note that in [LA] the funding for mainstream VI resourced provisions is delegated therefore teaching assistants are employed by the school. The “VI Service” does not maintain data on these TAs and they are not included in the data below.” (South East region)

“Exact figure not known – funding does not relate directly to TA hours.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)“The arrangements in [LA] are for schools to commit to providing the number of hours of discrete support to children with a VI (irrespective of whether statutory assessment has been made) as advised by the specialist teacher. This varies from 0-32.5 hours. Often the TA is employed in other duties within school alongside their commitment to the child with VI. This makes it very difficult to aggregate the total numbers of TA support. There is not currently a requirement for specialist teachers to record exactly how many hours per child they have advised – but this will now be recorded as from 1/9/14 so that the information is available. Detailed discrete TA hours are

29

available for those children with statements but these are very much in the minority in [LA] and so would be wholly unrepresentative of the amount of TA hours provided across the cohort.” (West Midlands region)

“[Employed by schools, no VI service involvement] 90 is an estimate. It is not possible to break down the FTE as these 90 TAs are employed in schools across three LAs on a wide range of hours per week contracts.” (South West region)

“[Employed by schools, no VI service involvement] Not able to confirm this number as schools use budgets according to need, even for pupils under statutory assessment.” (South West region)

“[Employed by schools, no VI service involvement] each student with a statement which provides funding for a teaching assistant recruits their own staff, approx 54.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“…The 2 employed by school with no VI service involvement - unsure of hours as they're employed by the academy.” (North East region)

This LA, while unable to provide numbers, explained how they monitored provision for the pupils in these schools:

“…We do not have access to the numbers of TAs employed directly by schools at any one time but we monitor statements of SEN for VI by attending Annual reviews to ensure that provision meets needs.” (London region)

While this LA, which did appear to have a clear idea of numbers commented:

“…includes TAs working in special schools, special pre-schools and additionally resourced bases where pupils are supported by a group of TAs. Numbers for TA [with] no VI service [involvement] not known. If we knew of any other TAs we would be supporting them.” (London region)

TAs employed under another type of arrangementFour LAs gave numbers of TAs supporting pupils with vision impairment who were employed under another type of arrangement; 45 TAs in total. Three of the four LAs provided further information about the TAs:

“Part funded through health.” (North East region)

“PLSA team centrally funded.” (London region)

30

“To support VI children and young people within Sensory Resourced Provisions based within a mainstream high school and primary school.” (Yorkshire and Humberside)

3.6.4 Other staff employed directly by the VI serviceAs some LAs bought in their VI support from other authorities not all employed their own staff directly. In these cases we have treated the response given by the commissioned authority as representing the commissioning LA. One LA provided only partial information to this question, inserting ‘#’ in some of the cells.

Table 10: Details of other staff employed directly by VI services in England (n=152)Type of post Number of people Number as full-time

equivalent (FTE)*Resource technicians (for production of accessible materials) 81 58.86ICT support technicians

46 31.44Dedicated early years staff

18 11.28Mobility/rehabilitation officer

31 18.08Mobility/habilitation officer for children

101 63.93Admin/secretarial

82 51.56Other

52 35.00Total 411 270.15*The FTE is a slight underestimate as not all LAs provided this information

In total, 411 staff other than QTVIs, QTMSIs and TAs were employed directly by VI services in the 152 LAs in England. This compares with 439 staff that had been recorded in 2013.Resource and ICT technicians employed by VI servicesEighty-one resource technicians (with responsibility for producing accessible materials) were employed centrally. This includes three members of staff that had been recorded in the ‘other’ category as responsible for modification. Several LAs did not have a dedicated resource technician post as these tasks were the responsibility of other members of staff such as TAs, while in others the resource technician and ICT roles were combined.

“ASA role with support from Apprentice.” (West Midlands region)31

“Resource technician also provides IT support.” (South West region)

“QTVIs do resource technician work. “ (West Midlands region)

“ICT support role is done by resource technicians.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

Forty-six ICT technician posts were identified, and as previously noted, in a small number of LAs this was a dual role with that of TAs or resource technicians. In at least one LA the post was shared with HI.

Early years staffEighteen members of staff were employed as dedicated early years workers, which is 11 less than in 2013. However, a further five members of staff were identified whose job roles had been recorded under different categories. These were two dedicated early years TAs and three specialist children and families officers who worked mainly with early years and primary aged children and families.

Another respondent noted that:

“Dedicated early years staff is NNEB Nursery Nurse – works with both Early Years and older children.” (West Midlands region)

Mobility/rehabilitation/habilitation officersWe had asked for the number of mobility/rehabilitation and mobility/habilitation officers employed directly by the VI service. A total of 101 children’s habilitation officers and 31 mobility/rehabilitation officers were identified.

However, from additional comments provided it is evident that five of the mobility/habilitation and two mobility/rehabilitation posts recorded in table 10 were in fact, externally commissioned or provided by social care.

“Purchase 12 hours per month from an agency…We have sufficient budget to purchase the hours we need and could and do increase when required.” (North East region)

“Mobility/habilitation for children is on contract from a private provider.” (South West region)

In addition to the mobility officers already discussed, six LAs identified mobility support that was externally commissioned or provided by social care and a

32

seventh noted that while the VI service employed its own mobility officers some of the centrally employed TAs also held a mobility qualification (although the nature of the qualification was not specified).

"Commission [name].” (London region)

“We commission mobility support by hours per year.” (East Midlands region)

“Service commissioned in from [name of voluntary organisation].” (North West region)

“Mobility/habilitation for children are from adult social care, as needed.” (North West region)

Administrative/secretarial staffThe number of administrative support staff employed centrally was 82. Many of these staff were shared with other teams or came under business support.

Other staff employed by the VI serviceFifty-two other staff posts were identified. These included:

Family officers Counsellors Braille instructors TA or ICT resource technician trainers or supervisors Intervenors/communication workers Safeguarding, health and social care workers.

3.7 Recent changes to VI service organisation, provision, or staffing

As stated in the introduction to this report, one of the main reasons that RNIB had conducted this survey under Freedom of Information had been to enable us to monitor the effect of public sector budget cuts on specialist provision for children and young people with vision impairment. There was some indication from the previous sections that between 2013 and 2014 there have been increases or decreases in the size of the VI service caseload in a number of LAs. We have also noted some staffing and organisational changes. In this section we look at the responses to specific questions about changes to service organisation and staffing and to provision for children and young people.

3.7.1 Changes to the funding and/or organisation of VI servicesOnly one LA failed to answer the question asking about changes to VI service funding and/or organisation in the past year.

33

Table 11: Changes to VI service funding and/or organisation since April 2013 (n=152)

Number %Yes 21 13.8%No 130 85.5%No response 1 0.7%Total 152 100%

Twenty-one LAs (14%) said that there had been changes to the VI service in the past year. The changes described can be broadly categorised as follows:

Management changes (5) Amalgamated within a new integrated, SEN or sensory service (4) Restructure to a different type of organisational model (4) Staff increases (2) Staff reduction (1) Change to area based model of organisation/deployment of staff (2) Funding changes to or from Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) (2) External commissioning of habilitation services (2) New VI resource base in the LA (1)

The quotes below give a flavour of some of the changes that had taken place:

“From 1st May 2013, the Sensory, Physical, Medical (SPM) Service became part of the local authorities SEN Specialist Support Service. The Specialist Support Service is an integrated service which includes Educational Psychology and Early Years, Sensory, Physical Medical Needs, Speech, Language and Communication Needs, Specific Learning Difficulties, Autism and Severe and Complex Needs. The service is led by a single Head of Specialist.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“From April 2013 we have established the Low Incidence Team (LINT) which looks after children with visual and hearing impairments. Funding for specialist support for children comes via the LINT Team.” (North East region)

“Two part time staff retired. One qualified teacher increased her hours to from 0.6 to full time. We have also added the hours of a part time Teaching Assistant to the VI team. Had these staff not retired we would have been looking at making 0.8 redundant because of numbers of pupils.” (North East region)

34

“[LA] Advisory Teaching Service is moving to an area base model of service delivery to enable more effective support and is more responsive to local patterns of identified need. Consequently, there have been changes to our management structure.” (South West region)

“From April 2014, the move to High Needs Block Place-Plus funding has been fully implemented within the VI service. The service is now funded by the DSG for central support, and by place plus funding for pupils attending ARC’s (additionally resourced centres).” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Prior to April 2013 the VI service was funded all by the LA centrally through the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Service is part managed by a specialist agency provider, which is also providing a full time teacher of VI to boost [LA] employed staff.” (North West region)

“Since April 2014 organised as part of the All Age Disability Service.” (London region)

“Commissioned through a contract to be run by the [name] Schools Trust…which is a group of schools in [LA]. [name of Trust] runs the service on behalf of [LA] across the whole of [LA]. All staff were transferred from [LA] to the Trust.” (Eastern region)

3.7.2 Staff posts lost since April 2013Nearly a quarter of LAs (35) had lost or had frozen VI service posts in the year since 1 April 2013. The total number of posts lost was 37.20, which represents at least 38 people (some respondents had given the number of posts and some as FTE).

Some of these LAs were part of a consortium arrangement - if we count these as VI services, then 28 VI services had between them, lost 38 staff posts in one year.

Most (13.9, or at least 14 people) were TA posts, closely followed by QTVIs (13.3 or 14 QTVIs). It is unclear whether all the staff posts that were lost have been reported however. Looking only at QTVI posts – including teachers with the dual QTVI/MSI qualification, staff on the MQ (VI) course and unfilled vacancies - then once the 14 lost posts have been taken into account, there appear to be approximately 13 QTVI posts unaccounted for. Similarly, since 2013 the number of centrally based TAs appears to have been reduced by 35. However, the

35

number of TA posts that were reported by LAs as having been lost since 2013 is around 14.

A few LAs that said they had lost staff in the past year provided further details:

“[TA posts lost] 2 Pupils have left LEA their posts were attached to pupils.” (London region)

“[TA posts lost] Posts above relate entirely to the changing population: Reduction in Braille users and increase in capacity of Complex Needs Early Years team.” (London region)

“[QTVI post lost] 1.0 FTE –staff have not been replaced as there is still capacity within services to offer VI support – QTVI still have a % generic work so there is flexibility to offer more to any high need child or additional children as necessary.” (North West region)

“QTVI left vol - The service reviewed level of need and there are currently sufficient staff to deliver the work in line with the NatSIP criteria.” (South West region)

3.7.3 Reduction in support for pupils with vision impairmentJust over one in ten LAs (17) said they had reduced or withdrawn support for at least one group of children and young people in the past year, since April 2013. However, for one of the LAs this reduction appears to have been temporary and (as discussed in 3.7.4) an increase in funding was enabling the VI service to return to previous levels of support.

The number of LAs that had reduced or withdrawn support from each of the following six groups of children and young people were:

Children/YP whose sight difficulty is below a certain threshold: 9 Children/YP with complex needs: 7 Young People in FE/post-16 settings: 4 Children/YP without statements: 2 Any other groups: 1 Children in the early years age group: nil

As we had found in 2013, the two groups of children that had been most affected were those whose vision impairment was below a certain threshold for VI service support, and children with additional complex needs (who in most cases, were in special schools).

36

Children/YP whose sight difficulty is below a certain threshold or without statementsNine LAs said they had reduced or withdrawn support from children and young people whose level of vision impairment was below a certain threshold, and two had withdrawn support for children without a statement. Comments relating to both groups are presented here as one LA had withdrawn support from both groups, and the second LA’s comment seems more applicable to those below a certain threshold:

“[Also pupils without a statement] Both are linked. Given the very large number of pupils using Braille, the service has had to reduce support and outreach to pupils below range 4 of the range guidance, equivalent to below 6/36 and N24 vision.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Last year’s staffing meant we were able to support some children with a mild loss and additional needs (e.g. dyslexia) on a short term regular input. However, this was more than the SERSEN categories advise…” (North East region)

Additional information provided by other LAs suggests that the NatSIP scoring criteria continue to be used as a way of restricting the VI service caseload, sometimes in response to demands on staff time and resources:

“CYP who do not meet the Natsip criteria as outlined in their 2012 recommendations.” (London region)

“Annual visits for those below 35, at school request for those below 20.” (North East region)

This LA however, used a clinical criterion (visual acuity) as their threshold, presumably this threshold had been raised since 2013:

“Students with visual impairment of 6/12 and less.” (Eastern region)Another LA responded that they had not withdrawn support for any group of children, although their comment below suggests otherwise – it is possible that no children on the current caseload had been affected:

“The VI team have withdrawn support for those children who no longer meet our visiting criteria but this is no different to before – Visual Acuities of 6/18 or below, 6/12 with nystagmus/CVI.” (South West region)

37

Children and young people with complex needsSeven LAs had reduced or withdrawn support for children and young people with additional complex needs.

“Some reduced QTVI time to Special Schools from a very high level [of support].” (North West region)

“Many of our special school pupils are now ‘advice only’ or ‘visit on request’ because their needs are being met within school / our capacity has been reduced.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Reduced visits to support some children (low level monitoring) with complex needs due to high caseload numbers and low staff levels.” (West Midlands)

“Model of working in special schools has changed to meet need with less input…” (North West region)

“Special school…can now use their funding to buy in to our service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

Young people in FE/post-16 settingsFour LAs had reduced or withdrawn support to young people in further education settings. While this may seem slightly surprising in view of the greater emphasis in support for young people with SEND up to the age of 25 in the new Code of Practice, from the additional information provided it appears that there was still provision for this group in some form.

“Service only works with children 0 – 16 at present or [who] remain in school post 16. Most VI children move to colleges which have their own provisions.” (London region)

“We have offered a traded service to the College and would extend this to any other Post 16 provider.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“….FE can now use their funding to buy in to our service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“….Capacity has been built in local Sixth form college so less specialist input needed. Changes have taken place in use of technology and e-learning materials which have reduced need for technical input and preparation and have reduced QTVI time in schools.” (North West region)

38

Other groups of children and young peopleOne LA said they had reduced or withdrawn support from other groups of children and young people:

“Local Authority no longer has a centrally funded typing tutor service. Specialist Teachers continue to recommend typing tuition where appropriate, with Schools responsible for making the provision.” (North West region)

3.7.4 Increase in support for pupils with vision impairmentWe also asked whether support for any groups of children and young people had increased since April 2013. Two LAs did not respond to this question, one of which had completed the previous year’s questionnaire which did not contain this question.

A third LA commented that:

“Support provided is based upon assessed need rather than allocated to groups of CYP and numbers vary from year to year within SA / SA+ / Statement and Key Stage.” (North West region)

Just under a quarter of LAs (37) said they had increased support for at least one group of children and young people in the past year, since April 2013. One of the LAs however, was using an increase in funding to return to previous levels of support following a temporary reduction to some groups because of having to concentrate resources on high needs children such as braillists.

The number of LAs that had increased support to each of the following six groups of children and young people were:

Children and YP with additional complex needs: 16 Young people in FE/post-16 settings: 14 Children in the early years age group: 13 Children and YP without statements: 3 Children and YP whose sight difficulty is below a certain threshold: 1 Other: 5

This is an encouraging finding, although it is notable that in some of the LAs concerned the increased support appears to have been for individual children and young people rather than for particular groups in response to a change in policy.Nevertheless, some increases were for whole groups of children which raises an important question: why have some LAs increased VI service provision for groups of children while others have reduced it? To attempt to answer this question we

39

need to consider which are the specific groups affected as well as the additional comments from respondents.

Table 12: Number of LAs in each region that had increased support for at least one group of CYP with VI in the year since April 2013 (n=150)Region Numberof LAsEastern 2East Midlands 2North West 6North East 2West Midlands 5London 6South East 3South West 6Yorkshire and Humberside 5

A few LAs had increased their support to more than one group of children:

“Due to increased staffing in other areas of the service we are now able to increase our support to Early Years, Pupils with complex needs and Post 16 as appropriate. We see all Children and Young People with diagnosed Visual Impairment including monocular vision – visit pattern depends on the severity of the condition.” (North West region)

“Additional support has now been given to children in early years and children currently in mainstream settings without a Statement. Visits to Special Schools have also increased.” (East Midlands region)

Children and young people with complex needsIn contrast to the seven LAs that had reduced or withdrawn support for pupils with additional complex needs, 16 had increased support for this group over the past year. From the comments we see two main themes emerging; some LAs were involved in specific projects or initiatives targeting children with complex needs in special schools, while others were responding to an increase in the number of pupils:

“Working on a pilot re Cerebral visual impairment. Working with [name of organisation] in special school to trial eye screening programme within school. Training VI teacher in MSI qualification.” (London region)

“More time has been committed to the children with MSI as their numbers are growing and the teachers need more support as they are not qualified to teach these children.” (London region)

40

“The service has increased support for some children with complex needs in special schools temporarily in order to build capacity. This work is being carried out in partnership with OT’s, Physiotherapists and SALT in order to model good practice. The service has also introduced a course for staff in special schools in order to support capacity building.” (South West region)

“New support package agreed with head teachers of SLD special schools based on CPD & one-off assessment visits…” (West Midlands region)

“There has been an increase in numbers of VI children…in the special schools.” (London region)

This LA cited an increase in funding or resources:

“Due to additional funding from April 2014, the service… is also significantly increasing support to special schools.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

Others however, simply referred to an increase in support:

“…We have also increased input for a defined period in 3 settings with children with severe learning difficulties and visual impairment.” (West Midlands region)

Young people in FE-post-16 settingsThirteen LAs had increased VI service support to young people in further education or other post-school settings. While in several LAs this seemed to be a direct response to the needs of individuals rather than to groups of students, there was some indication that the new SEND reforms were having an effect. It was also apparent that the support being provided did not always entail direct support to the student but training and capacity building for the settings.

“One student in 6th Form had levels of teaching support increased as her vision deteriorated. She also had mobility sessions increased.” (North Eastern region)

“Slight increase. One student is currently being supported with his learning of braille at a local college.” (South East region)

“We now support a student at [name] university.” (North West region)

41

“From Sept 2013 VI support bought in by College of Art for two VI students; from Sept 2014 support will also be bought in by 6th Form College for at least 1 student.” (West Midlands region)

“Post-16 input for individual pupils in response to need, specifically mobility and training to staff. Support up to 25/in FE to be reviewed and incorporated.” (London region)

“Offer of training to post-16 settings.” (North East region)

“Young people in post 16 now have the same access to services as those pre 16.” (North West region)

“[LA] is reviewing its support/pathways for young people with a vision impairment to ensure quality provision for these young people. This is also in line with 0-25 agenda.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

Children in the early years age groupThirteen LAs had increased support for children in the early years age group. Some of the LAs concerned were responding to an increase in the number of referrals for babies and young children:

“We have seen an increase in referrals for infants surviving preterm birth with severe difficulties and VI.” (South East region)

“Due to an increased number of 8 babies identified requiring support from the VI Service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“There has been an increase in numbers of VI children in the Early Years…” (London region)

Others described new services (such as play groups) that they had set up either independently or in partnership with a voluntary organisation, or new posts that had been created:

“We now run a weekly pre-school sensory group for H1 & V1 pre- schoolers.” (London)

“[name of organisation] organised weekly sensory (group) sessions with the service.” (London region)

“Via the launch of our 'nurture strategy' with primary schools.” (South West region)

42

“We have given additional support to a setting in early years to support a blind child consisting of daily one to one to cover gaps in their provision.” (West Midlands region)

“Additional Children and Families Officer post, working mainly with early years children, created under April 14 restructure.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Introduction of support from a qualified habilitation officer at preschool level for all children at the point of referral. (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Employment of 2 [early years] specialist teaching assistants…has enabled us to provide additional programmes of support for individual children.” (East Midlands region)

Children and YP below threshold or without statementsThree LAs had gone against the trend described in 3.7.3 by increasing support to pupils without a statement and one had increased support to children whose sight was below a certain threshold. This seems to have been primarily as a result of increased VI service funding or staffing.

Other groups of children and young peopleFive LAs said they had increased support to other groups of children and young people, and four gave details of the groups of children concerned. Two had increased mobility and independence provision:

“Increased support with Mobility & Independence for children and young people 5 yrs–16 yrs in mainstream and special schools – now also includes Independent Life Skills programmes and Touch Typing.” (North West region)

“We have started to commission in mobility training for CYP who require it. This has not previously been readily available.” (North West region)

One described additional support to an individual pupil:

“Grade 2 secondary braillist support increased by 50% in Sept 2013.” (Eastern region)

One described an increase in support to pupils with a specific type of vision impairment:

43

“From 1/9/13 ALL cases of Nystagmus – irrespective of the Visual Acuity of the child – have meant that the child is listed on the main active caseload. This is so that schools can be given support and advice without the need for a re-referral of a child previously ‘discharged’ from the main caseload and also so that teachers can have the work they do to support these children ‘credited’ against the child/school.” (West Midlands region)

3.8 Proposed future changes to VI service organisation, funding or provision for children

In this section we look at how LAs responded to a series of questions asking about proposed future changes in VI service organisation, funding or provision for specific groups of children and young people.

3.8.1 Proposed changes to VI service organisation or fundingJust over two thirds (67%) of LAs had no proposals for future changes to VI service organisation or funding, although three LAs added the following caveats:

“However a review of provision for CYP with sensory impairments began in September 2013 and is not yet completed. Until it is completed any potential changes are unknown.” (South East region)

“Although there is consideration of the impact of the new SEND legislation.” (South East region)

“But service continues to be under review.” (South West region)

Six LAs were uncertain:

“Unsure. There is a possibility of change as we are now acting jointly with [LA2] regarding children’s services and there is a possibility of some cross borough work.” (London region)

“Currently awaiting new proposals. Unsure of changes or the timescale, the Freedom of information Act (FoIA) provides a general right of access to information held by public authorities however you have sought views/opinions which by their very nature are not recorded information.  FoIA is only applicable to information held by the public authority in recorded format and we are not expected to provide opinion or speculate in order to answer a FoIA request therefore the Council is unable to provide you with a response in respect of those issues. “ (London region)

“Possibly. No further details available at present.” (London region)

44

One LA that had said there were no changes planned, nevertheless indicated through their response to our question about future proposals to reduce or increase staff, that the VI service was in fact being re-organised:

“The Inclusion Team is being restructured and is merging with the SEN Assessment and Monitoring Team. Our day to day work in the VI Team will not change but we will be working within a new team structure.” (London region)

Forty-three LAs (28%) were definitely anticipating changes. One LA did not respond to this question. As this LA is part of a consortium in which they other members had said there were proposals for change, it is likely that the same response applies to this LA as well, which would bring the total to 44 LAs (29%). Six of the 43 LAs made specific reference to the changes as being a response to the SEND reforms that at the time of the survey were about to come into effect in September 2014.

Table 13: Proposed changes to VI service organisation or funding by region (n=152)Region No

changesYes, changes

Uncertain No response

Total

East Midlands 6 3 - - 9Eastern 10 1 - - 11London 20 8 5 - 33North East 5 7 - - 12North West 17 6 - - 23South East 16 3 - - 19South West 8 7 - 1 16West Midlands 8 6 - - 14Yorks & Humber 12 2 1 - 15 A wide range of changes was anticipated and we have put these into the following seven categories:

Type of changes to VI service organisation and/or funding Review: 11 (including 3 that relate specifically to staffing) Restructure: 9 Staffing changes: 8 New commissioning or joint arrangement: 6 Merger with another SEND service: 3 Funding changes: 3 Other: 1

45

As will be seen from the quotes below, there is some overlap between the different categories.

Review of the serviceEleven LAs were in the process of reviewing the VI service. This includes three that were looking at specific aspects of staffing:

“A Local Authority review of SEN services as part of a larger disability services review will be undertaken for probable implementation of any changes in September 2015 following the Children and Families Act. It is uncertain what the outcomes of the review will be and no firm proposals have been made at this time.” (East Midlands region)

“Discussion currently taking place about how services could be delivered differently to save /generate income.” (North West region)

“The VI Service is in scope for move to an arm’s length education support services organisation from April 2015, however there are no definite proposals at this point, we remain at the scoping phase.” (South West region)

“Currently looking into Rehab/mobility provision and how best to offer this service in order to fully meet needs of pupils.” (North East region)

“SEN Audit Review likely to have impact on management of VI service.” (South East region)

Service restructureNine LAs were in the middle of a service restructure. This includes one LA in which specific staffing changes were anticipated, and three members of the same consortium that were all anticipating changes to the current arrangement.

“A future restructure of the sensory support team will take place during the next academic year. This is aimed at creating a Lead Practitioner post within the QTVI teachers and also to enable the recruitment of a Mobility and Orientation officer who will also produce Braille resources. It will also facilitate the creation of new posts in other areas of the team that do not affect this information request.” (North West region)

“Possible changes] the service is being reviewed as it is part of the Children’s Disability Service which is now under review. Proposed new

46

structure by Sept/ Oct 2014 (December at latest). Implementation by April 2015.” (North West region)

“There is currently a restructure planned for the whole of Educational Support Services likely to take effect in September 2014.” (North East region)

“A restructure is currently taking place in the context of the SEND reforms. The post of strategic lead for the service (Head of Service) has been replaced by the post of Sensory Needs Coordinator. Other proposals for service restructuring are out to consultation. The consultation exercise closes mid-September 2014 and proposals will be implemented in February 2015. We will be able to provide more detail at that stage.” (South East region)

“LA going through restructure and setting [up] SEND integrated service – no final decision yet but we are involved in shaping the new service. Other LAs [in the consortium] are also going through the same process. Commissioning arrangements likely to be looked at.” (South West region)

Staffing changesEight LAs described staffing changes, several of which were increases in staffing. Four of the eight were members of the same consortium so the actual number of staff involved is quite small.

“Management of the service will increase from two to three full days a week. VI Advisory Teacher will become full time as will the dedicated Early Years Staff Member. There will be a part time extended schools coordinator providing weekly MSI support. The SEN Toolkit and EHC plan will allow the service to draw from additional resources to meet the additional needs of CYP for example, QTVI providing “one to one” support in schools.” (London region)

“With effect from the start of the summer term 2014, additional QTVI was appointed by the LA to staff the resourced VI centre in preparation for its opening in September 2014, From that date there will also be a TA appointed to work in that centre.” (London region)

“Increasing staffing by 1 QTVI to help with future staffing due to retirement.” (North East region)

“The QTVI is shortly to be dis-established and then re-established to reflect changes around SEN reforms.” (North West region)

47

New commissioning or joint arrangementIn six LAs there were proposals to change an existing consortium arrangement, or to commission a different LA or to externally commission the service.

“Due to changes with our current provider we are currently in discussion with other local authorities to provide this service on our behalf.” (East Midlands region)

“The current commissioning of the VI service remains in force until July 2015. We are planning to move all VI services into borough from that date.” (London region)

“Proposals are in an advanced stage for the transfer on a one year contract of management of the VI peripatetic service from LA direct control to a local special school which previously was positioned as a special school for VI but now has 8% VI on roll. During this year contract the LA will be undertaking ‘soft market testing’ to establish whether other potential providers exist that might make it appropriate to offer the service to competitive tender. Intentions are for this initial temporary transfer to take place from 1.9.14.” (West Midlands region)

“The commissioning of Learning and Achievement services, including the VI service, is in response to the significant changes in the relationship between the Council and key stakeholders, for example the growth in the number of Academies and initiatives such as Teaching Schools leading to sector-led support and challenge. It also reflects the Council's aspirations to become an excellent commissioning authority, rather than a provider of services, whilst achieving the key priorities in the Corporate Plan. Prospective providers have been invited to meet with the Local Authority as part of an extensive market engagement exercise since January 2014 and the formal procurement process has started this month. Service provider(s) will be identified by January 2015.” (West Midlands region)

Merger with another SEND serviceThree LAs were planning to merge the VI service with another service. In two cases the plan was to have a new sensory service, while the third was merging the children and adult services.

“The service is merging with the HI Service as part of the wider LA SEN Review – by March 2015. “ (London region)

48

“On-going council changes may further impact on organisation of SEN Learning Support Services, of which team for VI [is] a part. Following a review of services and to plan for the new legislation for children and young people with SEN and/or disability up to the age of 25, [LA] council is bringing together the management of special educational needs and disabilities functions to create a single service. Consequently since April 2014 the Team for VI has been co-located to an All Age Disability Service to provide continuity across the age range.” (London region)

Funding changesThree LAs were expecting some funding changes, either to the size of the budget or to the way that funding was allocated.

“Funding will remain the same but we are considering delegating funding (current staffing to remain the same) to mainstream schools to manage the provision through a very thorough commissioning framework and service level agreement.” (North East region)

“Not known – there are budget cuts for April 2015 but the proposals not yet decided.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

Other changesFrom the information provided by one LA, it appears that they may have been exploring options for a consortium arrangement but as this wasn’t clear from the information provided we have coded it in the ‘other’ category:

“June 2013 onwards – Market testing of a cluster of services including Vision Team.” (London region)

3.8.2 Proposals to reduce or withdraw VI service support to particular groups of children and young peopleWe asked whether there were proposals to reduce or withdraw VI service support to any particular groups of children and young people. Ten LAs failed to respond to our question. Of the 142 that did respond, five (3.5%) said they were planning to reduce support. These were:

Children or young people without statements: 1: (London region) Children/YP whose sight difficulty is below a certain threshold: 3: (Eastern,

London, North West regions) Any other groups (please give details below): 1: (West Midlands region)

In fact, as we can see from additional information provided by these LAs, some of the changes were temporary or reflected contingency planning rather than definite reductions in support.

49

Children or young people with statements

“No current change to provision –currently working with SEN Team and others to plan for any changes once EHCPs in place.” (London region)

Under certain threshold

“Short term changes to support at lower thresholds when we shall be recruiting to vacancy. (Existing QTVI resigned at point in term when it was too late to go to advertisement. – Post will be advertised in September). (Eastern region)

“From September 2014 we are trialling moving children with a mild loss, no additional VI factors and no issues with functional vision from an annual visit to a ‘discharge’ but leaving schools and carers with the option to contact if they have any concerns.” (North West region)

Other groups of CYP

“Reviewing monitoring of colour deficiency and all monocular children, Sept 14.” (West Midlands region)

3.8.3 Proposals to increase VI service support to particular groups of children and young peopleWe also asked whether LAs were planning to increase VI service support to any groups of children and young people. Nine LAs failed to respond to the question. Of the 143 that did respond to this question, forty (28%) said they were planning to do so.

Four groups of children and young people were likely to be receiving an increase in support. The number of LAs that were proposing to increase support to each of the following four groups of children and young people were:

Children in the early years age group: 5 Children/YP with complex needs: 6 Young people in FE/post-16 settings: 30 Any other groups: 5

Table 14: LAs proposing to increase VI service support to groups of CYP with VI, by regionRegion Number of LAsEast Midlands 1

50

Eastern 2London 6North East 2North West 6South East 9South West 9West Midlands 2Yorkshire & Humberside 3 Young people in FE/post 16 settingsThe group that was most likely to benefit from increased support was young people in further education (FE) or other post-16 settings. Thirty LAs said they were anticipating increasing support to this group. It was evident from comments that for at least 11 of the LAs, this was a direct consequence of the SEND reforms that had extended the entitlement to specialist support to the age of 25.

“The support provided through Learner Support and the Traded Team will be reviewed in the light of the new Code of Practice and Children and Families Act 2014 in respect of the 0 to 25 agenda.” (North West region)

“Changes to meet requirements of new CoP and 16 – 25 agenda. Discussion will take place during the next six months around the impact of the Children and families Act on the Sensory Inclusion team.” (North West region)

“The service will review the support for young people who are post 16 and will require support under the statutory regulations which come into effect from September 2014.” (South West region)

Some respondents’ comments were about making support available to a wider age range of young people:

“In line with SEND reforms. Probable increase or change to practice to reflect wider age range.” (London region)“We will now offer advice and support to young people with a visual impairment above the age of 19 years up to and including 25 years should their visual assessments (SERSEN) indicate this is needed.” (North East region)

Most services were considering ways in which they might extend support to a wider range of settings, in particular FE colleges, which is new territory for many VI services:

51

“In line with the new SEND reforms and the SEND Code of Practice 2014. It is anticipated that from Sept 2014 there will be increased work / support for those in post-16 education (particularly between 19 – 25).” (London region)

“We are looking into how we support colleagues in post 16 settings in meeting the needs of VI students 19 -25.” (London region)

“With the move to EHC Plans we are investigating the possibilities of providing a purchased service to FE colleges.” (South East region)

“We are trying to work more closely with FE/Post 16 settings so that they will purchase the VI team, especially with the new SEND system now in place. We have tried to do this for a number of years as C/YP are supported frequently until they move on to FE/Post 16 settings and then the settings choose not to purchase our support.” (South West region)

In contrast, in this LA there was a new emphasis on transition planning and ensuring that there was sufficient provision within the authority:

“Stronger transition planning and availability of support from the SENSS Post-16 Team (Sensory Impairment) is giving young people with VI an in county option for Post-16 education.” (South East region)

Children and young people with additional complex needsSix LAs were planning to increase support to children and young people with complex needs in special schools and three gave details about how this would be achieved. In two cases this meant an increase in staffing:

“The service is currently providing two FT additional CSW support staff into specialist settings and is seeking to future proof this funding.” (West Midlands region)

“A teacher has just been recruited to support the MDVI / MSI pupils with complex needs (this post will sit within the MSI team).” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

The third LA described a project involving a voluntary organisation, which would lead to better identification and support for children with vision impairment in special schools:

“We are establishing support for those youngsters identified through the cerebral visual impairment screen, and trialling an eye-screening

52

programme within the borough’s special school with [voluntary organisation].” (London region)

Children in the early years age groupFive LAs were planning to increase support to babies and young children in the early years and four of the five gave further details about their plans. In all four this meant an increase in staffing and/or staff expertise:

“Following the review there will be a greater focus on Early Years with a specific Early Years Support Role created.” (East Midlands region)

“Dedicated Early Years staff member will be full time.” (London region)

“One of our teaching assistants has just completed the two year MISE habilitation course. From September of this year she will use her skills and knowledge to provide greater support and involvement to all pre-school children, where appropriate on referral, to develop age appropriate mobility and independent living skills training.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Gradually increasing (level) of support and further increase in January 2015 with recruitment .” (London region)

Other groups of children and young peopleFive LAs were proposing to increase support for other groups of children and young people and in all five cases this meant increases in staffing. One of the LAs had recently added an ICT technician post to the team, which was intended to increase capacity overall (and therefore presumably, an increase in support to all pupils requiring ICT input).

The staffing increases proposed by three of the LAs would all benefit blind children in particular:

“More TA hours (21) Sept 2014 to support blind children.” (South West region)

“We hope to recruit a mobility officer and thus increase our capacity as an Authority to be able to complete assessments and role out programmes in a responsive manner to those CYP who would benefit from it. This person will also be responsible for the production of Braille resources.” (North West region)

53

“Should parental preference mean that we see an increase in the number of Braillists in mainstream schools we will look to employing a specialist teaching assistant with Braille experience.” (South East region)

The fourth LA was planning to increase support to children with multi-sensory impairment (MSI) (which is a group that could also be described as having complex needs):

“We have an ATVI about to embark on her 2nd year of the MSI degree, so in the next 12 months we hope to raise the profile of MSI, to ensure CYP with MSI have a more consistent approach and a parity of provision across the county.” (South West region)

3.8.4 Proposals to reduce VI service staff posts in the futureOut of the 152 LAs, only four LAs gave no response at all to our question asking whether there were any proposals to reduce VI service posts.

A small number of LAs did not respond because they were members of a consortium or bought in their service from another LA. In these cases we treated the response of the lead LA as representing the other consortium members/commissioning LA.

Two LAs indicated that they were unable to reply to this question as the current situation was too uncertain, and a third responded that:

“The use of resource for specialist inclusion services is reviewed every year.” (West Midland region)

These weren’t the only LAs to voice a degree of uncertainty; of the 141 LAs that said they were not proposing to reduce any VI service posts in the future, six were unable to state categorically that this was the case either because the service was currently under review, or because the level of staffing was determined by the needs of the caseload:

“Service will be determined by levels of need so it is not a straightforward yes or no.” (London region).

Only three LAs said that they were proposing to reduce VI service posts:

“One member of staff wishes to reduce from 0.8 to 0.6 as from September 2014.” (London region)

54

“This is likely to happen unless we can income generate to cover the potential shortfall due to expected cuts.” (North West region)

“From August 2014 there will be no lead for VI on the team as the manager has this role and is being made redundant. There will be a reduced capacity for VI support, as the manager who is leaving is a QTVI. The remaining QTVI’s will have no ‘lead’. (South West region)

3.8.5 Proposals to increase VI service posts in the future As for the previous question, not all LAs were able to tell us whether there were any plans to increase VI service posts in the future. Four LAs did not respond to this question (including one that had used the 2013 questionnaire which didn’t include the question, and one that stated that as the question was speculative, under FOI legislation it wasn’t required to respond. Another four were uncertain either because the service was under review or because staffing was dependent upon levels of need of children on the caseload.

Rather encouragingly, in contrast to the previous question (3.8.4), 21 LAs said they were proposing to increase VI service staffing in the future - although from comments provided by one it appears that they were planning to re-organise existing staff rather than recruit to more posts. A further five LAs gave details of changes to staffing in terms of their training or deployment:

“We have a new support post currently being developed. Not yet confirmed which area this person will work in. As we are a small LA, likely to work cross phase and with pupils with additional needs. Post holder will commit to acquiring or already hold Level 2 Braille. We are anticipating this post will be filled Autumn 2014.” (North East region)

“Although following the completion of training of 4 x staff we will have increased teaching and advice time available within the service.” (North West region)

“Not to increase numbers, but to re-evaluate and extend two current posts. Two staff posts are to undergo job evaluation this term, with the aim that one existing ‘specialist support assistant’ will become a ‘habilitation officer’. Another post of ‘curriculum support worker’ will be re-evaluated to include ‘specialist support assistant’ status.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Please note that in addition to the 2 full-time posts centrally employed by the LA the service also has 1.2FTE teachers working for the team by means of seconded QTVIs from [name] Special School and long-term QTVI supply teacher. This is to manage the change of management from central to

55

school based management as it was felt that it would be difficult to recruit and retain staff whilst the future of the service was unclear.” (West Midlands region)

Of the 20 LAs that were proposing to increase staff:

6 were planning to recruit QTVIs/increase QTVI hours 2 were going to put teachers onto the MQ (VI) training course 4 TA posts 2 mobility or habilitation officers 1 manager 1 Early years post 1 MSI co-ordinator 5 not specified

Below are comments from some respondents to give a sense of who was being recruited and the reasons why:

“Numbers of VI pupils and severity of need dictate another full time teacher of VI, will be part of commissioning bid in April 2015.” (North West region)

“Increasing staffing by 1 QTVI to help with future staffing due to retirement.” (North East region)

“I have been able to recruit an additional 0.6fte QTVI for September due to the numbers of braillists increasing.” (South East region)

“When 0.6 QTVI leaves we hope to appoint full time QTVI-Sept 14 or Jan 2015.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Given the increase in the VI population we have been trying to develop the capacity / staffing of our service. We have been unsuccessful in our attempts to recruit qualified VI teachers. Therefore from Sept 2014 we will be employing a teacher and supporting them on gaining their MQ (VI) which they are embarking on in Sept 2014.” (London region)

“We hope to recruit a mobility officer and thus increase our capacity as an Authority to be able to complete assessments and roll out programmes in a responsive manner to those CYP who would benefit from it. This person will also be responsible for the production of Braille resources.” (North West region)

56

“Need to increase habilitation officer and VI centrally employed TA to support number of braillists and cane users - however this is funding dependent.” (South East region)

“Possible recruitment of an additional peripatetic TA, from September 2014.” (Eastern region)

“1 ICT technician frozen post to be recruited but reshaped as resource technician/Teaching Assistant: timescale uncertain at the moment.” (West Midlands region)

“Actual details aren’t yet known as we are currently reviewing post 16 provision.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

3.9 Planned changes in response to the Children and Families Act 2014 and/or the new SEND Code of Practice

In a final question we asked LAs whether they had any changes planned for support to children and young people with VI, in response to the implementation of the Children and Families 2014 Act and/or the new SEND Code of Practice.

Five LAs did not respond to this question and a further three said that they were uncertain whether there would be any changes.

Fifty-three, or over one-third of LAs (35%) said that they did have changes planned and 91 (60%) said that they didn’t.

All 53 LAs that gave a ‘yes’ response to this question provided further information about the changes they had planned. We have organised these into nine categories, although there is some overlap between categories. The comments of a number of LAs also fell into more than one category.

These are the categories and the number of LAs whose response came into each category:

Post-16 provision: 22 Consulting/working with/needs of CYP and families: 15 EHC plans: 11 Joint/multi-agency working: 10 Under review/service restructure: 9 Service delivery: 6 Local Offer: 5 Relationship with schools: 5 Not specified: 1

57

3.9.1 Post-16 provisionAs had been the case with earlier questions (for example, section 3.7.4) a major change for many VI services was the need to extend specialist provision to young people with vision impairment up to the age of 25. Twenty-two LAs made some reference to post-16 provision. Services were approaching this in different ways; some were still in the process of scoping need and numbers and/or considering what this would mean in terms of funding and resources. Others were thinking about the new skills that would be needed by their staff, while other services were identifying the professional colleagues they would now need to work with.

“We are currently identifying numbers and specific needs of students who may require support in post 16 FE provisions. This is to inform the LA of the potential need for additional resourcing to support this client group.” (Eastern region)

“Exploration of new skills required to support up to 25 yrs.” (London region)

“Support to students at Further Education will be free of charge from September 2014 due to changes in funding arrangements for Further Education SEN.” (South East region)

“We are investigating the possibilities of a purchased delivery to post 16 establishments that are not maintained provision.” (South East region)

“The provision of support for young people up to the age of 25 is under review at the moment. Service level agreements with local colleges and ISPs are being drawn up. These changes will start to take effect from September 2014.” (South West region)

“…We are looking into how we support colleagues in post 16 settings in meeting the needs of VI students 19 -25.” (London region)

“To support CYP with VI in Education up to 25 and to support in FE Colleges from September 2014.” (Yorkshire & Humberside region)

3.9.2 Consulting/working with/needs of CYP and familiesFifteen LAs made some reference to the implications of the new SEND Code of Practice for children, young people and families. This has been treated as a separate category from ‘post-16 provision’ because the issues raised are quite different.

For some respondents the emphasis was on the requirement to consult with CYP and parents, while others talked about the specific needs of children and/or

58

families. This was often in the context of describing the introduction of EHC plans or fulfilling the requirements of the Local Offer (hence some overlap with these categories), as can be seen from the quotes below.

“…There will be the introduction of the new process of Education, Health and Social Care Plans for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities including those with vision impairment. This system will reflect the principles of improved participation and involvement of children, young people and parents in developing these plans…” (Eastern region)

“…Closer working with families brought about by EHCP and transparency of support available…” (London region)

“Looking at how parents should be more involved e.g. through EHC plans to be implemented from September 2014. Putting the child at the centre and looking at how they can have a stronger voice in their education from September 2014.” (South East region)

“In line with the changes there will be a need for staff to work differently with all children, young people with additional needs and their parents/carers. We see this as enhancing the service we provide to these children/young people and their families and improving our offer as opposed to any service change in the way that is implied.” (North West region)

“…involving C/YP and parents in development and monitoring of services…” (South West region)

“…Increased work with families, further development of practice to ensure the “child’s” voice is not only heard but also acted upon…” (South West region)

“…better co production with families and children…Ensuring children with VI without an EHC have needs met and meet outcomes.” (North West region)

“…ways of working with parents as well as how personal budgets will be used are likely to have an impact on how things are done…In the end our aims to achieve positive outcomes for CYP with VI have not changed.” (South West region)

“…Support personalisation and implications for VI individuals…” (South West region)

59

“…Due to the small numbers of children and young people with vision impairments, the [LA] offers a bespoke service to families, including individual packages of support depending on the needs of the child/young person…” (London region)

3.9.3 Education, Health and Care (EHC) plansEleven LAs made direct reference to the introduction of EHC plans – in some cases they described how they would implement the process of assessment and review as set out in the new SEND Code of Practice, while others talked about the timetable for moving from statements to EHC plans. There is considerable overlap between this response category and some others (such as joint working, and consulting with/needs of CYP and parents).

“Person centred planning and the introduction of Education, Health Care Plans (rolled out from September 2014) will strengthen support for children and young people with vision impairment, 0-25 years.” (South East region)

“EHC plans have already been introduced for some pupils and will be used for all pupils by September 2014.” (London region)

“EHC plans for most complex VI CYP and the rest will have Pupil Resource Agreements (requiring funding above £6000) or Pupil Support agreements with £6000 already in schools. [LA] is a pathfinder and we already have pupils going into school in Sept 2014 with EHC plans.” (London region)

“Transition from statements to One Plans beginning September 2014. Support levels for all other none statemented pupils will be maintained.” (North East region)

“…publication of the Local Offer, conversion to EHC plans for all children with statements and a reviewed, more robust range model in place to identify needs.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)“More pupils may receive EHC plan.” (North West region)

3.9.4 Joint/multi-agency workingTen LAs spoke about the introduction of new ways of multi-agency working (at management as well as service delivery level) as required under the single assessment process and single EHC plan. In some LAs, this had led to a major restructure of the service (hence some overlap with 3.9.5 below).

“…There will be a joint commissioning agreement in place for all services provided by Education, Health and Social Care in relation to the needs of children and young people with vision impairment…” (Eastern region)

60

“…To review the Mobility Pathway within Borough to formalise the relationship between services provided within the educational context and those funded through social care.” (London region)

“… Closer working with colleagues in health and social care.” (London region)

“[LA] County Council and partners are developing our response to the new SEN Code of Practice and Children and Families Act 2014 through a Multi-Agency SEND Reforms Board and will implement required changes from September 2014 in line with legislation and advice.” (North West region)

“We do not have a lot of detail at the moment but there will be changes in the way pathways are developed, how services work together, possibly joint assessments, allocation of funding…” (South West region)

3.9.5 Under review/service restructureThe responses from nine LAs indicated that VI services were currently under review or had been/were being restructured.

“The changes referred to above are the result of a re-structure in response to the new Act and the creation of an SEND 0-25 service. Managerial posts were cut in order to create 30 SEND lead worker roles. The SEND lead workers carry out a role similar to the old Assistant Education Officer role and support the ‘My Plan’ (education health [and] care plan) process.” (South West region)

“Restructure to take place from Sept 1 2014.” (London region)

“We are currently scoping possibility of bringing all VI support into borough rather than commission external providers.” (London region)“Still in planning stages.” (North West region)

3.9.6 Service deliverySix LAs indicated that the reforms would affect the way they delivered services to children and young people with vision impairment.

“The levels of support are expected to stay the same but procedures and ways of working will change in line with the new SEN CoP.” (East Midlands region)

61

“As a result of implementation of the Children and Families Act locally and wider Children Services reorganisation we will be looking at how services are delivered. However there are no current plans to reduce costs or staffing in this area of work.” (Eastern region)

“Reviewing processes and working practice…” (North West region)

3.9.7 Relationships with schoolsFive LAs spoke about the effect of the reforms on the way that they worked with schools and in particular, the responsibilities of schools under the new legislation.

“The Local Authority is planning to follow the guidance in the SEND Code of Practice to take effect from September 2014. We are introducing SEN Planning tools to make it explicit what schools responsibilities are in relation to this cohort and the need for a graduated approach.” (North East region)

“The only things we are looking at is to be a little more explicit about what we expect schools to provide for children with VI because they have funding in their budgets but this is not expected to result in any less of a service from the central team.” (North West region)

“Where schools do not agree to a service level agreement for children without EHCP’s/Statements, or to pay an hourly rate for service involvement, we may only provide statutory responsibilities to assess, report, give initial training and provide one off advice and guidance. April 2015.” (West Midlands region)

3.9.8 Local OfferFive LAs made reference to their intention to publish the Local Offer and/or described what it was likely to contain.

“In close cooperation with 3rd Sector groups, and through an active involvement in the Local Vision Strategy Group, to ensure that the publication of the [LA] Local Offer (from September 2014) reflects the identified local information needs and sign-posts all families, including those hard to reach, to the available short breaks opportunities within borough…” (London region)

“Publication of the Local Offer, conversion to EHC plans for all children with statements and a reviewed, more robust range model in place to identify needs.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

62

3.9.9 Not specifiedFinally, one LA while indicating that there would be changes made no distinction between children and young people with vision impairment and any other type of SEND, and gave no details about what the changes would entail:

“The changes for VI children will only be in as much as the changes for all children.” (North West region)

4. DiscussionThe aim in this section is to look at the current picture in 2014 for the management, funding and staffing of VI, to see what changes had taken place since 2013 and what future changes were planned for 2014/15. Similarly, we look at the number and characteristics of children and young people on VI service caseloads in 2014 compared to 2013, criteria for allocation of provision, and any changes to specialist provision for particular groups of children and young people that had taken place in the past year or were planned for the near future. Finally, we will look at what (if any) changes LAs were planning for support to children and young people with VI in response to the 2014 SEND reforms.

4.1 Management and funding of VI services Despite the considerable pressures on local authorities it appears that in mid-2014 the majority of local authority VI services remained under local authority control in terms of both their management structure and funding arrangements. However, this overlays a more complex picture that is emerging of increasing fragmentation of services as a result of service reviews and restructures that have taken place over the past four years.

In the past year there had been changes to the VI service in 21 LAs (14%) . These included changes to management; changes to the VI service structure such as bringing it into a larger service structure such as a sensory or generic SEN service; externally commissioning parts of the service (such as habilitation provision); and changes to the funding arrangement with schools.

In most LAs, management of specialist education services for children was part of a VI, sensory or more generic SEND service. Most of these services (just under a half of all LAs) were managed as part of a sensory service, which is an increase of seven LAs since 2013.

Just under one in five (28 LAs) were part of a consortium or joint commissioning arrangement while around one in 12 were managed by or externally commissioned to a school or group of schools. In at least three LAs the schools ran the service as part of a Trust.

63

In only four LAs in England was the VI service externally commissioned to an external organisation (other than a school or group of schools). In two cases this was a private company and in the other two it was a voluntary organisation.

In two (neighbouring) LAs the whole of the children’s services were part of a social enterprise and the sensory service sat within this overall management structure.

In most (four out of five) LAs the VI service budget also continued to be held centrally, which is a similar picture to 2013. However, as we had found with the responses to our question on management arrangements, the true picture was rather more complex than the recorded responses might indicate. While most LAs had retained all or most of the VI service budget centrally, it appears that around two in five operated a traded service arrangement for some pupils, or had delegated all or part of the budget to schools in the LA.

The groups of pupils for whom provision was now funded under a traded services arrangement included those in special schools, pupils without a statement, and those in FE colleges.

The process of change appears to be ongoing, with approximately a third of LAs anticipating changes to the VI service over the next year. At least 11 LAs were undertaking a review of the service and a further nine were in the middle of a service restructure. Six LAs were considering changing an existing consortium arrangement, commissioning the service from a different LA to their current provider, or externally commissioning the service for the first time. Other proposed changes mirrored those that had already taken place in some authorities, such as merging the VI service with another SEND service. Funding changes were also anticipated in some LAs, with one respondent making explicit reference to future budget cuts.

4.2 Professional leadershipIn just under two thirds of LAs (96) the person with strategic management responsibility for the VI/sensory service was a qualified teacher of children with vision impairment (QTVI). In approximately one in seven LAs (22) the strategic lead did not hold a qualification for teaching children with sensory impairment (i.e. vision, hearing or multi-sensory impairment). This is a similar picture to 2013, when we identified 94 LAs with a QTVI as head of service and 21 where the strategic lead did not have a sensory impairment specialist teaching qualification. In three LAs the head of service did not appear to hold an educational qualification at all and in a further two, they had a teaching qualification but not related to sensory impairment. While it is possible that these services had the post of VI

64

service team leader, but if not, this raises questions about professional leadership and responsibility for tasks such as caseload allocation.

4.3 VI service staffingA comparison with 2013, as well as responses to specific questions in the 2014 survey about staffing changes, provides a mixed picture with evidence of further loss of specialist staff posts in some LAs while in others there appears to be a move towards recruitment of new staff. Overall, nearly a quarter of LAs (35) had lost or had frozen VI service staff posts in the year since 1 April 2013. While the number of lost posts was identified as 37.20 (or at least 38 people), as will be discussed later in this section, by comparing the 2013 with the 2014 FOI returns there are more posts that are unaccounted for.

4.3.1 QTVI postsLooking first at QTVIs we see that there were 496 QTVIs and seven dual qualified QTVI/QTMSIs employed directly by VI/sensory services in 149 LAs. A further 59 teachers were undertaking QTVI training, bringing the total to 562.

Thirty-three QTMSIs were also identified plus a further 16 teachers who were expected to begin training for the MQ (VI) within the next two years.

This means that in total, 536 teachers with a QTVI or QTMSI qualification were employed by VI/sensory services in England in 2014, with a further 75 either in training, or expected to begin training within the next two years.

Only four teachers were identified who were neither trained nor expected to start training within the next two years. There were also 24 vacant QTVI posts, four of which had been advertised but no suitable candidates found.

Comparing these figures with 2013, and including vacant posts and staff on the MQ (VI) course but excluding teachers not yet in training, there appear to be 27 fewer QTVIs employed (or potentially employed) in VI services in 2014 than in the previous year (613 compared to 586). We know (as detailed in 3.7.2) that approximately 14 QTVIs were made redundant or their posts were frozen when they had left voluntarily. However, once the 14 have been taken into account there still appear to be 13 QTVI posts lost and unaccounted for. Further analysis will be needed to get a better understanding of these discrepancies but the evidence shows that in 2014 at least 14, and possibly as many as 27 – fewer QTVIs were employed in local authority VI services than in 2013.

65

4.3.2 TA postsThe picture that emerges for TAs is even more complicated because we asked about TAs employed directly by the VI service – either LA or school based – and those employed directly by schools.

Overall, the number of TAs identified in 2014 to support pupils with vision impairment in 148 LAs was 2,431 and of these, 537 (22%) were employed directly by the VI service. This compares with 3,208 TAs identified in 151 LAs in 2013, 572 of whom (18%) were employed directly by the VI service. It is important to note however, that the proportion employed directly by the LA is an over-representation as it was not possible to get an accurate figure for TAs employed directly by schools.

Looking at the TAs employed directly by the VI service, we have found 35 fewer than in 2013. We know that approximately 14 TA posts were lost through redundancy or vacant posts being frozen, which leaves 21 posts unaccounted for.

Turning next to TAs employed directly by schools, we identified 709 fewer TAs in 2014 than in 2013. However, we cannot be certain that this reflects an actual reduction in the number of TAs supporting pupils with VI in schools as it was clear that many LAs did not hold this information centrally, or held only partial information.

That such high numbers of TAs supporting blind and partially sighted pupils are now recruited and employed directly by schools raises serious questions about the training and specialist professional supervision that is provided to these individuals, and the extent to which QTVIs are able to influence the way that they are deployed. We have seen from research undertaken by the Institute of Education that TAs insufficiently trained and supervised can hinder rather than support the education of pupils with SEN (Blatchford et al, 2009; Webster and Blatchford, 2013). We suggest that research is needed to get a better understanding of the training and supervision that is provided for TAs supporting pupils with VI to ensure that they are using appropriate and effective support strategies.

4.3.3 Other staff postsAs had been the case in 2013 a range of other staff were employed directly by VI services. These included resource technicians, ICT support technicians, mobility/habilitation or mobility/rehabilitation officers, early years staff as well as family officers, counsellors, braille instructors and other more generic roles.Very few staff posts other than QTVIs and TAs seem to have been lost in the past year although this may reflect the very low base.

66

4.3.4 Future staffingFrom both general questions and specific questions it was evident that further staffing changes were planned in many LAs over the coming year. Several LAs were planning to increase staffing in response to the SEND reforms – for example to meet the needs of a wider age range of young people up to the age of 25. Others were doing so because of increased demand due to an increase in the numbers of children with a high level of need such as braillists. In total, 20 LAs said they were proposing to increase VI service staffing. Only three LAs were definitely planning to reduce staff posts although a few were uncertain as their service was currently under review.

4.4 Pupils with vision impairment: numbers and provision

4.4.1 Numbers and characteristics of children and young people with VIThe total number of children and young people aged 0-25 supported by VI services in 152 LAs in England in 2014 was 25,294. This is 404 fewer than identified in 2013. Although we know that some LAs reduced support to some groups of children in 2013, this does not in itself explain the discrepancy as those reporting a reduction in support were not necessarily those whose caseloads had decreased. In addition, the caseload had increased in size in several LAs. Follow up calls to a sample of LAs suggests that there were a number of reasons for the discrepancies including different/better methods of record keeping (such as removing the names of CYP who were no longer supported by the service from the database), tightening up of criteria for support (with greater use of the NatSIP scoring levels in 2014), and policy changes leading to increases or reductions in support to some groups of children, most notably those with complex needs in special schools.

We also found a reduction in the number of braillists identified: 787 compared to 840 reported in 2013. Two LAs failed to provide details of the number of braillists in 2014, but if we assume they had the same number as in 2013 we still have a reduction of 40 braillists. This seems a large number as a proportion of all braillists, particularly as some LAs have reported an increase in the braillists on their caseload. We do not have an explanation for this discrepancy between the 2013 and 2014 figures although it is possible that – as with the caseload figures – better record keeping means that the later figures are more accurate. It will be interesting to see how many braillists we identify in the 2015 FOI survey.

4.4.2 Increases and reductions in provisionMost LAs (85%) used some form of the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) support levels to determine eligibility for levels of specialist support from the VI service. This is a decrease of four LAs since 2013.

67

Just over one in ten (17) LAs had reduced or withdrawn support for at least one group of children and young people in the past year. As we’d found in 2013 the group most affected were children who were not considered to have a VI of sufficient severity to meet VI service criteria for support. We had been concerned that some LAs may be misusing the NatSIP scoring system to allocate support levels to justify not supporting some groups of children and young people, as this had been indicated in previous RNIB surveys and there was some indication that in some LAs this may still be the case. Others, however, appear to have been using strictly clinical criteria – visual acuity – as their threshold. This is not something that RNIB would recommend as individual children vary considerably in how they use their vision with other factors such as additional SEND or social disadvantage also having an effect.

The second group that had been most affected by a reduction in VI service support was pupils with complex needs in special schools, which again had been the case in 2013.

Only five LAs said they were planning to reduce or withdraw support in the future and it appears that some of the changes were temporary, or reflected contingency planning, rather than definite reductions in support. Again, the pupils most affected were those deemed to have less high level needs/less severe VI and we continue to have concerns about the possibility of these children ‘slipping through the net’ in terms of their access to specialist support.

More encouragingly, just under a quarter of LAs (37) said they had increased support for at least one group of children and young people in the past year since April 2013. Paradoxically, the group that had received an increase from the greatest number of LAs (16) was those with complex needs in special schools.

Other groups to benefit were children in the early years age range, and young people over the age of 16 and/or in post-school settings, although in some of the LAs concerned the increased support appears to be for individual children and young people rather than for particular groups due to a change in policy.

A similar pattern is emerging with regard to the future, with forty LAs (28%) planning to increase support to, respectively, young people in FE/post-16 settings, pupils with complex needs, early years children, and children with the highest level of need.While many of these changes reflect the LAs’ response to the SEND reforms, particularly with respect to post-16 provision, it is clear that others are planning strategically for other groups as well. There is some innovative work that seems to be emerging in individual LAs around supporting children in special schools. The fact that a number of LAs seem to be taking the long term view and building

68

capacity in VI and sensory services, suggests that cutting staffing and services does not have to be the only response to budget constraints.

4.5 Changes in response to the Children and Families Act 2014 and/or the new SEND Code of PracticeOver a third of LAs had changes planned for support for children and young people with VI in response to the implementation of the SEND reforms in September 2014. A number of the LAs concerned were clearly thinking quite widely about the implications of the reforms, while others had concentrated on one or two issues. The requirement to extend specialist support to young people up to the age of 25 while in education (other than HE) and training was the main focus for the highest number of LAs.

The development of a Local Offer, for example by consulting with children and families and giving them a ‘voice’ was a consideration for some while others were concerned about the transition to EHC Plans. Developing new ways of multi-agency working was discussed by some respondents while others spoke about the effect of the reforms on the way that they would work with schools in the future.

It was clear that these LAs had thought in some detail about the implications of the reforms for VI service provision and it will be interesting in the future to compare their Local Offers and specialist provision with the Local Offers and provision of the remaining two thirds of LAs that were either planning no changes, or were currently under review so not in a position to do so.

5. ConclusionAs stated in the introduction to this report, one of the main reasons that RNIB had conducted this survey under Freedom of Information had been to enable us to monitor the effect of public sector budget cuts on specialist provision for children and young people with vision impairment.

A complex picture is emerging of increasing fragmentation of VI services as a result of service reviews and restructures that have taken place over the past four years, with more changes planned for the coming year.

There have been further losses of specialist staff – in particular QTVIs and TAs. The apparent large decrease in numbers of TAs would appear to reflect the fact that in many LAs these figures are not held centrally. This is as a result of increasing delegation of SEN funding to schools and increasing responsibility of schools for meeting SEN provision. We have serious concerns about the quality of TA provision for pupils with VI – who are the TAs that are providing this support,

69

what training have they received and what sort of specialist supervision are they receiving?

There has been a reduction in specialist support for some groups of children and young people, most notably those whose level of vision impairment no longer meets the threshold for VI service input. This is also a matter of concern to RNIB as there is a real risk of children with ‘mild’ vision impairment slipping through the net. Support for pupils with complex needs in specials schools has also been cut in some LAs, yet paradoxically, in other LAs support for this group of children has been increased or future increases are planned.

There is some evidence to suggest that a number of LAs are planning strategically for future provision for children with VI while others seem to be reacting to local authority budget cuts by reviewing and restructuring VI and sensory services and cutting staff. We suggest that there may be opportunities for the more innovative LAs to be sharing their ideas with others.

This survey was carried out at a time of unprecedented change in SEND provision. It is evident that some LAs are engaging with the reforms and considering the implications for children and young people with VI and their families while others seem slower to do so. We will continue to monitor the effect of the reforms on specialist provision to children and young people with VI over the coming year.

ReferencesBlatchford P, Bassett P, Brown P, Martin C, Russell A and Webster R (2009) Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: Characteristics, working conditions and job satisfaction of support staff in schools (Strand 1, Waves 1-3 in 2004, 2006 and 2008). Institute of Education, University of London for DCSF. Research Report DCSF-RR154

Blatchford P, Bassett P, Brown P, Koutsoubou, Martin C, Russell A and Webster R with Rubie-Davies C (2009) Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools: The impact of support staff in schools (Results from Strand 2, Wave 2). Institute of Education, University of London for DCSF. Research Report DCSF-RR148

Keil S (2014) Local authority Vision Impairment (VI) education service provision for blind and partially sighted children and young people. Report on findings from RNIB Freedom of Information (FOI) requests 2013. RNIB

Webster R and Blatchford P (2013) The Making a Statement project: Final Report. A study of the teaching and support experienced by pupils with a

70

statement of special educational needs in mainstream primary schools. Dept of Psychology and Human Development, Institute of Education, University of London. Research project supported by the Nuffield Foundation.

71