swot analysis report - Woodfield TSAS.W.O.T&analysis&InvestigatingtheQualityandUseof&Makaton& within&Woodfield&School&! 2!! 1. InvestigatetheoccurrenceofMakaton!sign!and!symbolsused!!acrosskey!subject

S.W.O.T analysis Investigating the Quality and Use of Makaton within Woodfield School

1

Date analysis was carried out: 28/01/14 and 03/03/14 -‐ 07/03/14

Introduction

The S.W.O.T analysis framework (Harrison, 2010) implemented will evaluate the educational service’s internal strengths and weaknesses and identify external opportunities and threats, of implementation and delivery of the Makaton program. The tool is intended for preliminary stages of decision-‐making and aids processes in strategic planning (Bartol & Martin, 1991).

S.W.O.T analysis aimed to evaluate:

• S – Strengths of service current service

• W – Weaknesses/lost opportunities of current service

• O – Opportunities for improvement

• T – Threats/barriers to change

Woodfield School is a secondary special educational needs institution. The establishment provides an educational service to adolescents (ages 11-‐20) with special educational needs, including children with autism, severe learning difficulties (SLD) and speech and language disorders. The establishment was advised by their fulltime Speech and Language Therapist (SLT) to implement the Makaton program using a whole school approach.

Makaton is a language programme that uses symbols and signs alongside speech to aid in teaching of communication, language and literacy skills. An extensive evidence base supports using Makaton and visual aids with this client group to enhance their communication, reduce incidences of challenging behaviour and enable curriculum access (Grove & Walker, 1990; Hetzroni, 2003; Jolleff & Ryan, 1993). The school incorporated the program within their most recent School Development Plan (SDP) (2010) (appendix1). Makaton efficiency was a key inclusive goal highlighted for all staff to use from teacher-‐pupil, pupil–pupil and pupil-‐teacher. This goal was set to be attained by December 2013. The area has been subject to clinical concern because the target has not been achieved and the number of SLD admissions to the school is increasing.

Methodology

Data on the evaluation of service delivery and quality will be obtained through:

Audit

Teachers across key subject areas teaching a KS4 class with SLD, (LL) were evaluated on their use and implementation of the Makaton program, in a 50 minute lesson (appendix2). Each subject area was observed once across the specified dates (28/01/14 and 03/03/14 -‐ 07/03/14).

Due to time constraints of the SALT student one class was chosen to be followed. The class chosen was identified as having pupils requiring the most need of visual support.

The audit aims to:


2

1. Investigate the occurrence of Makaton sign and symbols used across key subject areas

2. Evaluate the quality/variation of Makaton sign and symbols used across key subject areas

3. Identify missed opportunities of use within a 50 minute lesson

Key subject areas: English, Maths, Science, PSHE, Expressive arts, P.E., Humanities and Enterprise.

Survey

All staff were emailed a short survey to complete (appendix3), aiming to:

1. Find the percentage of staff members that have received Makaton training at any level

2. Identify the number of hours training, staff have received

3. Explore staff member’s knowledge and confidence in using Makaton

Results

Results were achieved by analysing the 26 questionnaire responses and the in class audit (of signs and symbols used). The following results were identified:

Strengths

Faculty and Staff

From the 26 survey responses over 80% had received Makaton training, with the majority receiving 1-‐5 hours (37.5%). This demonstrates that the majority of staff are well trained in implementing Makaton on a daily basis, to enable students’ access to the curriculum. Over 70% of staff stated they employed Makaton in the classroom and used it more frequently with students with SLD. This highlights teachers’ knowledge about facilitating individual pupils, by providing a supportive mode of communication. Evidence from the audit suggests Makaton is currently instated within the classroom, but use is minimal (appendix 2).

Survey results imply staff are enthusiastic to learn and develop as professionals i.e. majority requested termly refresher training to increase their knowledge and confidence. Motivated staff enable maintenance of program fidelity, staff moral and teaching of students (Hooper & Walker, 2002). Having a qualified SLT educated in delivering Makaton training, improves staff skills, provides a source of efficacy evaluation of service delivery and saves costs (Makaton, 2014).

Policy

The school’s Provision for SLD policy (2012) states that a whole school approach in use of multimodal communication is implemented, to allow inclusive access to the curriculum. In addition the School’s Development Plan identified Makaton as a goal to raise attainment levels of pupils. This


3

demonstrates the service’s awareness of the needs of their students with SLD and current guidelines stating the importance of learning through total communication (RCSLT, 2006; DOH, 2009).

Students

Students with SLD, autism and auditory memory difficulties are visual and kinaesthetic learners (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1997; Carbo & Hodges, 1991). Observations revealed children present in the classroom used Makaton to communicate with teachers and peers, highlighting successful use of Makaton as a communication aid.

Weaknesses

Faculty and Staff

Audit observations revealed inconsistent delivery of Makaton (ranging from 0-‐13 attempts during 50 minutes) across all key subject areas. Use of Makaton symbols was not observed; signs used consisted only of greetings and directions and not all staff have received foundation level training. These findings demonstrate the lost opportunities for effective teaching through Makaton. It is recognised that pupil’s with SLD access the curriculum successfully through use of visuals and alternative modes of communication (Goldbart & Caton, 2010). Current service is not meeting the learning needs of students therefore impacting on pupil’s level of educational attainment and participation.

Another hindering factor was the reported confidence levels of teachers use and knowledge of Makaton (averaging at less than competent). This result indicates loss of fidelity of the program due reduced motivation of staff, to implement a strategy they are not confident in using (Bub & Earley, 2010).

Policy

Clear policies standardise care and ensure staff understand what is required for successful service delivery (RCSLT, 2009, 2-‐40). Current SLD policy (appendix 5) does not explicitly state Makaton as one of the school’s recognised communication strategies. This may inhibit staffs use of Makaton due reduced understanding of requirements expected of them.

Intention of the School’s Development Plan to implement Makaton was not achieved by the target date, further impacting the quality of service delivery received by Woodfield students.

Classroom facilities and environment

Observations revealed no employment of symbols:

-‐ Used to mark out key words -‐ Used in lesson timetables -‐ Used to aid group discussion (question and sentence strips) -‐ Used to provide choices


4

Opportunities

1. Training

- Targeting training of new staff members to prevent inconsistency of Makaton and enhance quality of delivery to all students

- Termly re-‐fresher training was the preferred approach by staff to heighten their confidence and knowledge of Makaton (appendix3). Yearly assessment of staff will identify efficacy of Makaton ability and highlight possible need for future training

- Joint lesson planning with SLT will provide teachers with increased knowledge of how best to use Makaton within the classroom and encourage staff to use signs that are specific to classroom concepts and vocabulary

Inconsistent use of sign should be regulated through training to meet current Makaton guidelines. Results of collaborative working, staff expertise and relevance of chosen vocabulary in (Harding et al., 2011) displayed positive outcomes for both participants. Adopting these changes will provide better provision to assist with the increased SLD admissions.

2. Whole school approach

-‐ Use with all pupils as Makaton will generalise in its use across the whole school. Allowing for use with teacher-‐pupil, pupil-‐pupil and pupil-‐teacher

-‐ Use of visual symbols in session timetables, reinforce key words and use in question and sentence strips to aid classroom discussion

-‐ Encourage children to sign during lessons i.e. during classroom discussion/activities

3. Policy

- Update service delivery in relevant policy

- Create new School Development Plan with achievable goals i.e. focus on attainment of teacher-‐pupil.

Current policy and School Development Plan are outdated and dates of goal attainment need to be revised. Specifically stating Makaton within school policy will make it clear that it is a requirement for the whole school, therefore enhancing staff knowledge of school guidelines.

Another special education provision within the borough (Manor School) has specified Makaton in their Admissions policy (2013) and their most recent Ofsted report (2012) provides evidence of successful implementation of the Makaton program.

4. Parents -‐ Future opportunities to generalise use of Makaton at home, through providing

home programs and taster or training courses.


5

Threats

1. Budget

- Training staff is a costly process. The school relies on sufficient government funding for training and resources

2. Time Constraints

- Staff time constraints may hinder their attendance to attend re-‐fresher training. The SALT may not have time to provide termly refresher training due to caseload and other service provision.

- Parental time constraints

3. Motivation -‐ Motivation of staff and parents


6

References

Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1991). Management. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.

Bub & Earley (2010) Helping staff to develop in schools. London: Sage Publications ltd.

Cargo, M., & Hodges, H. (1991). LEARNING STYLES STRATEGIES CAN HELP STUDENTS AT RISK, in Flyer File on Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Learners. Washington: Council for Exceptional Children.

Department of Health (DOH) (2009). Valuing people now – a three-‐year strategy for people with learning disabilities. London: The Stationery Office.

Goldbart & Caton, (2010). Communication and people with the most complex needs: What works and why this is essential. Manchester: Research Institute for Health and Social Change Manchester Metropolitan University.

Grove, N. & Walker, M. (1990). The Makaton Vocabulary: Using manual signs and graphic symbols to develop interpersonal communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 6 (1), 15-‐28.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1997). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Harding, C., Lindsay, G., O’Brien, A., Dipper, L., & Wright, J. (2011). Implementing AAC with children with profound and multiple learning disabilities: a study in rationale underpinning intervention. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 11 (2), 120–129.

Harrison, J. P. (2010). Essentials of Strategic Planning in Healthcare. Chicago: Health Administration Press.

Hetzroni, O. E. (2003). ‘A positive behaviour support: a preliminary evaluation of a school-‐wide plan for implementing AAC in a school for students with intellectual disabilities.’ Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability. 28 (3), 283 -‐ 296.

Hooper, H. & Walker, M. (2002). Makaton peer tutoring evaluation: 10 years on. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 30 (1), 38-‐42.

Jolleff, N., & Ryan, M. (1993). Communication development in Angelman's syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 69 (1), 148-‐150.

Makaton (2014). Makaton training resource guide. Accessed on (19/03/2014). Available at: https://www.makaton.org/Assets/Store/Downloads/freeresources/training.pdf

Manor Special School (2013). Admissions Policy. Accessed on (18/03/2014). Available at: http://www.manorschoolbrent.co.uk/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/10/Admissions-‐Policy1.pdf

Ofsted (2012). Inspection report: Manor School. London: Ofsted. Accessed on (14/03/2014). Available at: http://www.manorschoolbrent.co.uk/wp-‐content/uploads/2013/01/Ofsted-‐Report.pdf


7

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) (2006). Communicating Quality 3. London: RCSLT.

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) (2009). Resource Manual for Commissioning and Planning Services for SLCN. London: RCSLT, pp.2-‐40.


8

Appendix 1: School Development Plan (2010)


9

Appendix 2: Occurrence and variation of Makaton


10

Appendix 3: Survey results


11


12


13


14


15


16

Appendix 4: SWOT analysis results


17


18

Appendix 5: SLD policy

Provision of SLD (2012)

Racial Equality and Equal Opportunities:


19

All staff including:

Documents

swot analysis report - Woodfield TSAS.W.O.T&analysis&InvestigatingtheQualityandUseof&Makaton& within&Woodfield&School&! 2!! 1. InvestigatetheoccurrenceofMakaton!sign!and!symbolsused!!acrosskey!subject