1. Services to Special Schools - Kent
NatSIP Working Day
7th February 2017

2. General issues for Sensory in Special Schools
Strategies for pupils with sensory impairment were not consistently being put in place.
Advice about sensory impairment was not effectively cascaded to all of the support staff or to the supply/cover teachers.
Each September required an explanation of sensory needs and strategies as it was not effectively covered in the transition between classes.
A general feeling that sensory was someone else’s job.

3. Hearing Impairment
Special Schools have the same proportion of HI pupils as mainstream schools but many have high levels of HI needs.
Some intransigence to supporting a Total Communication approach that included BSL.
Visual Impairment
Very high numbers of VI pupils in the PSCN Special Schools
Lack of specialism to meet VI needs within the Special School staff

4. Multi Sensory Impairment/Deafblindness
High proportion of MSI caselist in Special Schools
Lack of awareness within Special Schools of the impact of the impairment of both distance senses
MSI team were tasked with finding deafblind pupils in the Special Schools.
Confusion in Special Schools about MSI meaning deafblindness - generally the term was used for ASD pupils who required a multisensory approach to the curriculum.

5. Hearing Impairment – Moderate, Severe, Profound 83 pupils in Special School (15% of caselist)

6. Visual Impairment – Moderate, Severe, Profound 195 pupils in Special Schools (45% of caselist)

7. MSI/deafblind – Exceptional, Profound, Severe 19 pupils in Special Schools (48% of caselist)

8. A change was required
A delivery model was needed to have greater impact within Kent’s 11 Special Schools for Profound Severe and Complex Needs to improve outcomes for children with sensory impairment.
The catalyst was Sensory Service restructure in September 2012.
Commissioned through an SLA from the LA with all sensory staff employed by one Special School
Opportunities for closer working between the Sensory Service and Special Schools

9. What did Special Schools want from the Sensory Service?
Task and finish group was set up.
8 Special Schools each released a member of staff to attend 3 half day sessions over a 6 month period.
The Sensory Service committed a small team from HI, VI and MSI to provide professional input and to pull together and action any proposals.

10. What did Special Schools want?
“Think Tank” approach with a vast range of ideas.
Everything noted and nothing discounted.
Quickly moved past wanting MORE and started to think creatively.
Before the next meeting - the ideas were organised into themes and proposals drafted on how to take these forward.

11. What did Special Schools want?
Training Opportunities
Regular Liaison
Input into how interventions were prioritised
A way of evidencing good practice in the classroom
A way of identifying areas for improvement
A library of sensory activities

12. Evidencing Good Practice
Best Practice Guidance Document to be used to acknowledge good practice and highlight areas for improvement
This was co-produced at our second meeting with the Special School reps taking ownership of the Quality First Teaching Section
Shared electronically, trialled in schools and fine tuned at our third meeting ready for circulation in June 2013.

13. Sensory Link In place by the summer of 2013.
The Sensory Link is a Teacher/SLT member with an interest in or experience of working with pupils with sensory impairment who will:
act as the school link for visiting sensory teachers
meet with visiting sensory professionals 6 times pa
liaise with the visiting sensory professionals to prioritise the work delivered in the school in line with the criteria for intervention

14. Sensory Link
develop a clinic approach to the termly meetings to ensure that school staff had opportunities to discuss concerns re sensory impairment
support other professionals within their school through the use of the Best Practice Guidance for Sensory Impairment
encourage the dissemination of good practice re sensory impairment within the school

15. Sensory Link
identifying the development of the classroom strategies to support access for those with SI
attend county forum meetings for the Sensory Links
not necessarily holding the “knowledge” but providing the conduit for communication
ensuring that intervention is planned and transparent

16. Sensory Link Forum
2 training days each year for the Sensory Links and up to 3 professionals from their school (June & Dec)
Organised by the Sensory Service
The Sensory Service professionals also attend.
Usually around attendees.
Morning sessions are provided by a national speaker
Afternoons are for sharing strategies and activities.
Special School funding meets the venue costs and Sensory Service fund the speaker.

17. Library of Sensory Activities
Everyone who attended the Sensory Link Forum was asked to provide information on a successful sensory activity in a standard format which was ed in with their application.
These were saved onto memory sticks or CD ROMs and distributed to those attending.
At 200 sensory activities this was viewed as complete.

18. Best Practice Guidance for Sensory Impairment in Special Schools
Outlines what the Special School teachers expect Quality First Teaching in their school to look like when it fully includes pupils with sensory impairment.
Details what Specialist Intervention may look like in a Special School when modelled by a Specialist Teacher for Sensory Impairment or when delivered by the class teacher or teaching assistant.

19. For evaluation of classroom practice the document is organised into three sections :
Communication
Access to Information
Independence, Mobility and Resilience
Separate section on Whole School Planning to aid Sensory Links in their discussion with their Senior Leadership Team.

20. How is it used?
It is designed as a tick list to acknowledge strategies used or observed and then a highlighter is used to indicate areas for development.
In March last year after 3 years of use the Task and Finish Group reconvened for one session to review and update the Quality First Teaching.
Sensory Links from 8 Special Schools reported how they used the document:

21. How Special Schools use the BPG
By Individual staff:
Self evaluation of strategies used in classroom
Evidencing their professional development for Performance Appraisal
Planning areas for development or training
As a discussion document with the classroom team
With parents as evidence of good practice
Reported to be a good evidence based document to support requests for relevant/appropriate equipment.

22. How Special Schools use the BPG
By Sensory Links and line managers:
As part of classroom observations particularly if staff lacked confidence in the area of sensory impairment.
As part of mentoring meetings with staff - pointing out the positives and identifying some areas to work on.
As an observation tool to identify training needs.
The Specialist section can be more difficult for the classroom staff and so this helps to focus the work of the Specialist Teachers for Sensory

23. How Special Schools use the BPG
By Schools:
As a general observation tool to identify training needs for sensory for the whole school.
One school reported that the SLT are using the Whole School Planning section as a checklist for how well they are doing and to highlight areas for change.
One school reported that it goes to all teachers and is part of the school’s induction pack for all staff, so that individual classroom staff can use it as a checklist and for self-evaluation.

24. How Special Schools use the BPG
The experience of teachers:
One Sensory Link shared their experience of being on the other end of an evaluation with the BPG and found it a positive experience
One Specialist Teacher shared that introducing it for the first time to a Special School was daunting but it always highlighted lots of positives with the Quality First Teaching as well as some areas to work on. She supported the introduction by modelling good practice.

25. BPG – Bite Size
The request from schools was the Quality First Teaching section in a Bite Size format so it could be used in the classroom as a focus for the week.
The QFT is now available in 7 Bite Sized sections so that schools could cycle through them in a term.

26. Outcomes
There has been a real change in Special Schools taking ownership of the work with children with sensory impairment.
Schools know who their Sensory Link is.
The Sensory Links meet regularly with the Specialist Teachers for Sensory Impairment.
Schools are evaluating their own practice.
Schools are identifying training needs.
Identifying MSI pupils in Special Schools effectively.

27. Outcomes
Children’s sensory needs are being better supported between the visits made by the Specialist Teachers for Sensory Impairment
Children using sign and tactile communication are better supported
More children are using a tactile approach to literacy including Braille
Training is commissioned by the Special Schools to meet needs

28. Outcomes
One school is currently accessing Sensory Service funding to train their own QTVI
Two separate schools, one with a QTVI and another with a QToD on their general staff are using them in Sensory Link roles
One school volunteered to take on a specialist class for deaf pupils and now has a QToD and CSWs on staff as well as 16 staff undertaking BSL Level 1 courses.

29. Amount of Sensory Service Support
The amount of support time allocated has not changed.
HI is in line with the Eligibility Framework allocation for mainstream schools
VI each school receive half a day a week/fortnight with the focus on those with severe or profound VI.
Moderate VI in a Special School should be met by QFT as set out in the BPG.
MSI teachers support QTVI and QToDs to bring their knowledge about a child together and coordinate MSI assessments and reports.

30. Questionnaire 2016 Schools evaluation: Good/Excellent 100% Word Cloud from 30 pages of schools’ confidential comments: