RNIB Supporting people with sight loss

Research

Freedom of Information (FOI) questions on local authority education provision for children and young people with vision impairment in England: 2015

Final report

Sue KeilEvidence and Service ImpactFebruary 2016

Registered charity number 226227 (England and Wales) and SC039316 (Scotland)

Contents

Summary of findings

1. Introduction

2. Method

3. Organisation and funding of local authority education vision impairment (VI) advisory services

3.2 3.1 How LAs meet their responsibility to provide specialist educational provision for children and young people with VI

3.3 VI service management

3.3 Changes to VI service provision, management and/or funding since April 2014

4. Children and young people on VI service caseloads

4.1 Number of children and young people known to VI services

4.2 Number of braillists

5. VI service policies

5.1 Criteria for determining eligibility for VI service support

5.2 Changes in criteria for support since April 2014

5.3 Criteria for allocating levels of support for children and young people with Vi

5.4 Criteria for assessment for an EHP plan for children and young people with VI

5.5 Groups of children and young people with VI not supported by the VI service

6. Joint working with other agencies

6.1 Arrangements for working with health and social care

6.2 Vision impairment register for children and young people

7. VI service staffing

7.1 Qualifications of VI service strategic manager

7.2 Number of specialist teachers employed by the VI service

7.3 Number of teaching assistants providing support to pupils with VI

7.4 Other staff employed or externally commissioned by the VI service

8 Proposed future changes to the VI service

8.1 Formal proposals for future changes to VI service funding and/or organisation

8.2 Proposals for future changes to VI service policies and/or practices in educational support

9 Conclusion

Summary of findings

Background

In June 2015 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 third 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 the second and third surveys has been to monitor changes that may have taken place over each successive year, and to find out whether any further changes were planned in the near future. More specifically, we wanted to know what changes (if any) local authorities had made 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 for 2015

In two thirds of local authorities the VI service was delivered in-house by the LA. Other arrangements include a consortium/joint arrangement with other LAs, commissioning the service to a neighbouring LA or to a school. A minority of LAs commissioned the service to a voluntary or private sector organisation, or had some other arrangement in place.

The proportion of LAs in which the VI service was managed as part of a sensory service has increased from 42.8% in 2013 to 56.6% in 2015. Fewer VI services were part of a larger SEN service in 2015 than in 2013.

In 22 LAs (14.5%) the VI service had a reduction in its budget between 2014/15 and 2015/16, while in 54 LAs (35.5%) there was an increase.

24,865 children and young people aged up to 25 were on VI service caseloads in 2015. This is 429 fewer than were reported in 2014. A comparison of the 2014 and 2015 caseload figures for individual LAs shows that in some LAs the caseload has increased while in others there has been a reduction.

By including children and young people with VI who were known to VI services but not on their caseload (e.g. pupils in VI resourced schools, or those being educated outside the LA), a total of 26,067 were identified, who were receiving specialist educational provision for their vision impairment in 2015.

71% of LAs used the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) framework to determine eligibility for VI service provision. However, because VI services differed in how they applied the criteria (the minimum score that would trigger entitlement to VI service support ranged from 5% to 50% in one LA), there was very little standardisation across the country.

Just over one in ten LAs based a child’s eligibility for VI service support on the level of visual acuity (VA) with the threshold set at 6/18 or higher, and/or required to be registered as blind or partially sighted. This raises concerns about what (if any) specialist support is available for children with VA below this threshold whose vision impairment is still likely to impact on their development and learning.

Despite the legislative changes that have extended entitlement of specialist support to young people with SEND up to the age of 25 if they are in education or training, young people over the ages of 16/18/19 belong to the group that was currently not supported by the VI service in a number of LAs. While a few LAs were actively seeking to improve provision to these older learners, it is apparent that others were struggling with the idea of supporting learners in post-school settings.

84.2% of LAs had an established arrangement in place with Health for referring babies and children to the VI service. In 12 LAs it was unclear what (if any) referral arrangements were in place and in two LAs the VI service appeared to have no formal contact with Health.

In just under two thirds (64.5%) of LAs the person with strategic management of the VI service was a QTVI. In one in eight (12.5%) LAs the head of service did not hold a qualification in sensory impairment.

598 teachers with a QTVI or QTMSI qualification, or who were in training, were employed by VI services in 147 LAs. A further 29 were expected to begin training within the next two years. There were 16 QTVI vacancies at the time of the survey.

The number of children and young people on QTVI caseloads varied significantly between LAs. While some variation might be expected due to the characteristics and needs of learners on VI service caseloads, in 12

LAs extremely high ratios of one QTVI to around 100 children and young people with VI were found.

Only 84 LAs (55%) employed teaching assistants (TAs) centrally – between them, they employed a total of 495 individuals. The vast majority of TAs (2,600) were recruited and employed directly by schools.

38 mobility/rehabilitation and 145 habilitation officers were employed, or commissioned, by VI services in 122 LAs. The 122 LAs included several that were members of a consortium or joint arrangement, with some staff shared by all, but employed by only one, of the member LAs. In a small number of LAs mobility support was provided by the adult social care team or bought in when needed. It would appear that in 20 LAs the VI service neither employed nor commissioned, nor bought in from another provider, specialist staff to provide mobility and independence training for children and young people. It is possible that in some of these LAs mobility support was provided but there is no indication from any of them whether or not this was the case.

Conclusion

Over the past 3 years LAs have responded in different ways to the challenges posed by cuts to public sector funding. While some LAs appear to recognise the importance of having a well resourced VI or sensory service, others seem not to appreciate the value of specialist staff and have either gone down a more generalist route, or have cut VI service staffing levels. The result is a rationing of specialist VI service provision in some LAs.

In conclusion, the current situation is one of significant variation across LAs in terms of models of organisation, management, staffing and resources, and policies and practices. For children, young people with vision impairment and their families this means that access to specialist educational provision from the VI service is a postcode lottery.

1. IntroductionIn June 2015 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 third 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 second and third surveys has been to monitor changes that may have taken place over each successive year, and to find out whether any further changes were planned in the near future. More specifically, we wanted to know what changes (if any) local authorities had made 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 as a Word attachment to an email, to the FOI officers in 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

2.1 Number of responses

Questionnaires were returned by all 152 local authorities (LAs) in England.

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. Organisation and funding of local authority education vision impairment (VI) advisory services

The responses in this section reveal an increasingly complex picture of the way that VI services are organised, managed and funded in England, often with several layers of management.

3.1 How LAs meet their responsibility to provide specialist educational provision for children and young people with VI

Table1: How LAs meet their responsibility to provide specialist educational provision for children and young people with vision impairment

Number %In-house service provided centrally by the LA 104 68.4%Part of a consortium of LAs/joint arrangement with other LAs

17 11.2%

Bought in from another LA 2 1.3%Commissioned to a school/group of schools 19 12.5%Commissioned to a charity or voluntary organisation 4 2.6%Commissioned to an external (non-public sector) agency 2 1.3%Other 4 2.6%Total 152 100%

3.1.1 LA in-house VI serviceIn the majority (over two thirds) of local authorities the VI service was provided in-house. As the quotes from these three LAs indicate, funding arrangements varied within this central model of organisation:

“[LA] has a Special Educational Needs and Disabilities 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. SEND also has a Traded arm, which includes QTVI, which sits at arm's length and are commissioned by schools and settings.” (North West region)

“SEND also has a Traded arm, which includes QTVI, which sits at arm's length and are commissioned by schools and settings.” (North West region)

“Approximately 85% of funding for the Visually Impaired Service is centrally retained DSG funding. A nominal amount (approx. 9% of

budget) is also delegated to schools as part of a wider service level agreement for SEN support services.” (West Midlands region)

3.1.2 Consortium/joint arrangement/bought in from another LASeventeen LAs indicated that they were part of a consortium or had a joint arrangement with other LAs and a further two had a formal arrangement to buy in their service from another authority. In fact, there were around 27 LAs that were part of some form of joint arrangement with other LAs but not all had selected this option. In some cases, this was because the LA concerned commissioned the service to a school or a group of schools that were based in a neighbouring authority.

One LA commented that the VI service, which was an in-house service provided centrally by the LA, was:

“Not part of a consortium of LAs/joint arrangement with other LAs, however have reciprocal arrangements with some bordering authorities.” (North West region)

3.1.3 Commissioned to a school/group of schoolsIn 19 LAs the VI service was commissioned to a school or group of schools. This includes two LAs that had originally selected the ‘other’ option:

“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...” (South East region)

“The VI budget is delegated to two schools.” (Eastern region)

3.1.4 Commissioned to a voluntary organisation or external (non-public sector) agencyFour LAs said their service was commissioned from a voluntary organisation but only one gave details of the organisation concerned, and a further two commissioned an external organisation to provide the service.

3.1.5 Other arrangementFour LAs gave details of another arrangement for providing the VI service. This includes two very small local authorities that had no VI or sensory service, and currently no children or young people with vision impairment being educated within the LA:

“There are no known [LA] children with visual impairment at the moment. If the service is required, the [LA] will source a suitable

supplier... There is no defined budget for the provision of VI services. Any expenditure would be allocated to the overall children's services budget..” (London region)“As a small LA we will commission external advice and services as required.” (South West region)

The other two LAs described how they had formed a ‘community interest company’ delivering services to children in both LAs:

“From 2014/15 (LA1) and (LA2) launched [name], a community interest company delivering children’s services to [LA1] and [LA2].” (London region)

3.2 VI service management

Table 2a: How VI services are managedNumber %

Within generic SEN service 30 19.7%Within sensory service 86 56.6%Stand alone VI service 16 10.5%Other 18 11.8%No response* 1 0.7%Not applicable 1 0.7%Total 152 100%

Table 2b: Management of VI services between 2013 and 20152013

%2014

%2015

%Within generic SEN service 25.7% 25.0% 19.7%Within sensory service 42.8% 47.4% 56.6%Stand alone VI service 14.5% 11.8% 10.5%Other 16.4% 14.5% 11.8%No response/not applicable 0.7% - 1.3%Total 100% 100% 100%

Just over half (56.6%) of VI services were managed within a sensory service for children and young people with vision impairment and hearing impairment. One in five (19.7%) were managed as part of a larger, generic, SEN service and only one in ten (10.5%) were managed as a separate, stand alone VI service. In around one in eight (11.8%) LAs, there was another type of management arrangement. However, as illustrated by quotes in 3.2.1 to 3.2.4 below, in practice there were often layers of management, with the VI or sensory team sitting within a larger team or teams.

Comparison with 2013 and 2014 (table 2b) shows that the pattern has been the same for each of the two previous years, but that over the three year period there has been an increase in the number of sensory services and a corresponding decrease in separate VI services and in ‘other’ types of management arrangement.

3.2.1 Within sensory serviceIn over half (86) of LAs, the VI service was managed within a sensory service, although the additional comments below and in 3.2.4 indicate that in some LAs the sensory team sat within a larger SEN structure or a school, or management arrangements might be shared between VI and HI professionals:

“(Sensory team sits on SEN Service structure).” (West Midlands region)

“(Part of [school] outreach service).” (London region)

“ But separate managers for HI AND VI who work closely together to manage the Sensory Needs Team” (North West region)

3.2.2 Within generic SEN serviceIn one in five (30) LAs the VI service sat within a generic SEN service, although as noted in 3.2.1, there were often several tiers within the overall structure, or the VI or sensory team might be located within a school.

“[Within generic SEN service] [and] Commissioned to a group of schools.” (London region)

“Sensory service (separate team within generic service)”. (East Midlands region)

3.2.3 Stand alone VI serviceOnly one in ten (16) LAs had a separate VI service compared with 22 LAs in 2013 and 18 in 2014. As the quotes in the previous and following sections (3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.4) show, in many LAs the VI service has retained its separate identity even though overall strategic management may have been assigned to a non-VI professional.

3.2.4 Other types of management arrangementAround one in eight (18) LAs selected the ‘other’ option to describe how the VI service was managed. From the additional information that was provided it is evident that in most cases the service was situated within a larger, tiered framework of services.

“Within Physical and Sensory Team.” (North West region)

“Part of Education and Skills directorate since April 2015. Directly managed now by head of school improvement service along with the HI and PI team. Educational psychologists and traded SEN arm managed by other people in this directorate. No longer part of multi agency all age disability service.” (North West region)

“VI support sits within [LA] Sensory Impairment Support Service which is part of [LA] Complex and Additional Needs Service.” (North West region)

“Managed by Principal Educational Psychologist who manages Sensory Inclusion Team and other specialist teachers.” (North West region)

“There is a dedicated VI team within the SEN Support Services (SENSS).” (South East region)

“Within HVSS (Hearing and Vision Support Services) within SEN Specialist Teaching and Advice Services.” (South West region)

“The service is technically a stand alone service for Visual Impairment but has had merged management arrangements with the Hearing Impaired team since 2008 and with the Physical Impairment team since 2012.” (East Midlands region)

“Within the Inclusion Support Service.” (London region)

While in the LA below, the VI service was not only situated on a lower tier within a larger SEN structure, there was also a geographical division:

“The VI Team is part of a larger Sensory Education and Support Team. Since September 2014, the Sensory Education and Support Team has been moving into Locality working – the SEND Team in [LA] has been divided into 4 localities and the Sensory Education and Support Team has been ‘virtually’ aligned to the localities whilst also retaining discrete management as a Sensory Team.” (East Midlands region)

In these LAs, the service was managed by a school:

The service is delivered from staff with QTVI or MSI qualifications employed by the [name of Trust] at [name of] special school.” (London region)

“Since Jan 2015 the VI Service has been led and managed by a specialist school which is also a designated school for pupils with a Visual Impairment.” (West Midlands region)

3.3 Changes to VI service provision, management and or funding since April 2014

Table 3: Changes to the way that the VI service is provided, managed and/or funded since April 2014

Number %No 128 84.2%Yes 20 13.2%No response 4 2.6%Total 152 100%

Four LAs failed to respond to the question asking whether there had been any changes since April 2014 to the way the VI service was provided, managed and/or delivered. One of the four belonged to a consortium of LAs and had responded that the information was held by the lead LA but unfortunately, the lead LA had also failed to respond to the question.

It is encouraging to see that in the majority (84.2%) of LAs there had been no changes to VI service provision, management and/or funding in the past year (although see 3.3.1 regarding VI service funding). Twenty LAs said that there had been changes and all provided information about the type of changes that had been made. These are presented below under the three categories, although with some overlap. A fourth category of ‘staffing’ has been added under 3.3.4.

3.3.1 Details of changes to VI service fundingIn a separate question we had asked for details of the VI service budget in 2014/15 and 2015/16 and as detailed in table 4, in at least 50% of LAs there had been budget changes.

Table 4: Changes to VI service budget between 2014/15 and 2015/16Number %

No change 55 36.2%Increase 54 35.5%Reduction 22 14.5%Do not know/unable to provide info 15 9.9%No response 4 2.6%Not applicable 2 1.3%Total 152 100%

It is encouraging to see that in 54 LAs (35.5%) there had been an increase in the VI service budget, but of some concern is the finding that in 22 LAs (14.5%) there had been a reduction.

In response to the question asking whether there had been any changes to service provision, management and/or funding, eight LAs gave details of funding changes. These included budget reductions or increases, or changes to funding arrangements, and provide us with some context for the findings presented in table 4.

“Reduction in equipment component of budget as expensive specialist IT is now purchased by LA’s Commissioning and Resources section.” (Eastern region)

“A small reduction in non-salary costs due to changes in equipment requirements.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“A VI teacher post has been removed from the budget in 2015/16..” (North West region)

“Up until 2013 the entire Sensory Service (including HI) received income from Service Level Agreements with schools. The income from this arrangement declined from £100,000 up to 2013 to only £25,000 in 2014/15. It is not yet certain what if any income will be generated in this way in 2015/16.The direct consequence of this has been an inability to replace the head of sensory service (HI and VI) who retired in 2013 and a 0.8 specialist teaching assistant role has not been filled although a 0.5 teaching role has been increased to 0.6 commencing Sept 2015.A head from another SEN Service within the authority currently has overview of budget and performance management issues with a team leader undertaking day to day supervision and organisation of the team. We recruited a teacher in 2014 who began her mandatory training in September 2014 and the cost of this has had to be met from the budget whereas previously it was met by separate central funding through workforce development.” (West Midlands region)

“A traded service from Year 1 upwards. An LA funded service for Early Years.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“...The Service is just starting to feel the effects of place plus top up funding in ARC’s, because the number of children has reduced in ARC with a loss of £10,000 a year per child. The children are attending mainstream school.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Increase in budget funding.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“The Service has extended to post 16 and therefore additional funding has been given to allow this extended service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

3.3.2 Details of changes to VI service provisionFive LAs indicated that there had been changes to the way that the VI service was provided, for example through changes to commissioning arrangements, or bringing in other teams.

“A restructure has taken place and there is now a contribution to the CYP Sensory service from staff in Social Care (additional orientation and mobility in schools is being provided from staff under the social care budget).” (London region)

“The VI team is now part of a Sensory Impairment Team and with the same Line Manager for VI & HI.” (South West region)

“Service now commissioned to school.” (West Midlands region)

“The VI Service became part of the larger Sensory Service in September 2014, and we are nearing the end of a large re-structure exercise...”(Yorkshire and Humberside region)

3.3.3 Details of changes to VI service managementFive LAs indicated that there had been changes to the way that the VI service was managed and/or organised. For example, two of the five had moved to an area based way of working.

“Area based model of delivery for Advisory Teaching Service implemented enabling local response to need.” (South West region)

“In 2013-14 the VI Service was managed by two HI teachers – one having responsibility for pre-school children across HI and VI (across the sensory service) and once having responsibility for school age children across HI and VI. From 2014-15 the VI Service has temporarily been managed by the generic Head of SEN Service due to one of the teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) sensory teachers going on maternity leave. The future management structure across the Sensory Team is currently undergoing further review.” (North West region)

“The Head of the All Age Disability Service who we were line managed by has been made redundant and the post has been removed.” (North West region)

3.3.4 Details of changes to VI service staffingVI service staffing is considered in detail in section 7 of this report. However, in response to our question about changes to service provision, in addition to the previous quotes, three LAs gave further information about changes that had involved service staffing.

“The service underwent a restructure last year, as a result the VI/MSI service received an additional 0.2FTE.” (London region)

“Vacant 0.8 habilitation post. We are buying in Blind Children’s Society (Guide Dogs). (North West region)

“The Senior SEND Advisor for Sensory team is currently working on leading transfer reviews for Statements of SEN to EHC Plans across the Local Authority. Recruitment is proceeding to backfill the post.” (West Midlands region)

4. Children and young people on VI service caseloads

4.1 Number of children and young people known to VI servicesIn 2014 we asked LAs to give the number of children and young people in four age bands up to the age of 25 who were on VI service caseloads in England. For the 2015 survey we asked an additional question to identify the number of children and young people known to the VI service but not directly supported by them, such as those educated within the LA but attending a resources or special school, as well as learners being educated outside the LA.

As will be discussed in more detail in sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.3, some data is missing for 2015. That is because some LAs provided only partial information, although most of the missing data applies to children and young people not directly supported by the VI service. The reason given for not providing this information was either that the information wasn’t held locally, or as figures were so low they couldn’t be provided under Data Protection legislation.

A small number of LAs also gave details of children and young people who were not on the VI service ‘active’ caseload, or who were MSI but in this case only the latter group have been included in the figures presented in tables 5a, 5b and 5c.

4.1.1 Number on VI service caseloads

Table 5a: Number of children and young people with vision impairment on VI service caseload (receiving support from the VI service)Age Number in 2014

(n=152 LAs)Number in 2015(n=152 LAs)

0 – 4 3,933 3,9525 – 16 18,554 18,78317 – 19 1,711 1,89920 – 25 142 208Total* 25,294 24,865*The total exceeds the sum of the four age bands as one LA did not give an age breakdown, just an overall total figure and a further three members of a consortium gave <5 for the individual LAs, but a total for the consortium as a whole for ages 17-19. In 2014 only 148 LAs gave an age breakdown.

As can be seen from table 5a, a total of 24,865 children and young people up to the age of 25 were on VI service caseloads in 2015. Included in this figure are 73 children and young people with MSI in two LAs whose numbers had been presented separately to those with VI.

The total is a slight under-representation as two LAs were unable to provide numbers of young people aged 20-25. One of the two did not hold this information and the second stated that the number was fewer than five.

The total for 2015 total is 429 fewer than in 2014, which is surprising in view of the SEND reforms which from September 2014 extended the age of young people entitled to specialist support in education and training to 25 years. In fact, 2,107 young people aged 17 – 25 were identified who were being supported by VI services in 2015 compared to 1,853 in 2014 (an increase of 254), although in both years a few LAs were unable to provide accurate figures for the older ages. It is also notable that, as discussed in 5.5.1, in 2015 there were 32 LAs that were still not providing support to those in the older age groups and/or non-school settings.

Three LAs indicated that the numbers they had reported excluded some groups, as detailed in the quotes below. However, a comparison of their 2014 and 2015 FOI responses shows no significant discrepancies in the figures reported and a consistent approach to reporting in both years.

“These are children on Monitor to Support Plus but there are others in advice. Your questions do not cover those children as there is a difference between ‘supported by the service’ and not receiving direct support BECAUSE they are not attending local provision. The numbers of children known to the service but at advice only are as follows:[171 aged 0-25 detailed].” (South East region)

“These are pupils on the active caseload. There are also 18 pupils on a request only basis. 17 new referrals are also currently being assessed. (West Midlands region)

“This number does not include children in special schools where there is no direct support, but training, advice, assessment and support is provided to the school setting.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

However, a fourth LA does appear to have had a significant reduction in its caseload figures between 2014 and 2015 and their comment below suggests that this might be because of changes in recording pupil information:

“...(some may also be seen by traded services but this information is held by individual schools).” (North West region)

By comparing the 2014 and 2015 caseload figures for all LAs it is apparent that although there has been an overall reduction in number, in some LAs the caseload has increased while in others there has been a reduction. The same inconsistencies were reported in our previous report (Keil, 2015) in relation to

the 2013 and 2014 figures. We had subsequently contacted several heads of VI services who explained that that the changes were due to improvements in record keeping meaning that cases were closed more promptly once the support was no longer needed, or where the child had been assessed as not requiring specialist input.

However as we had only spoken to a few individuals, we did not rule out the possibility that in some LAs a reduction might reflect changes in criteria for support meaning that some children and young people had been removed from the caseload. If that is the explanation for our current findings it is not evident from the responses given in the 2015 survey as the majority of those LAs for which we had found significant changes in the size of their caseload said there had been no changes in their criteria for VI service support over the last year. For only three LAs where we had seen significant changes to the size of their caseload was there an indication that this was a direct result of policy changes relating to criteria for VI service support:

[Decrease in size of caseload] “In house Eligibility Criteria previously used. The VI Service is now using NatSIP Eligibility Framework for Scoring Support levels (2015).” (London region)

[Increase in size of caseload] “Previously we focussed more on Visual Acuity less than 6/18 but we have always used NatSIP too”.(North East region)

[Decrease in size of caseload] “As a result of QTVI staff leaving the local authority we have slightly reduced the criteria. We have now appointed to the vacant posts and so will resume the previous criteria.” (North West region)

Another possible explanation may be cohorts of particular age groups of children and young people moving onto or off the VI service caseload.

In summary, we do not have an explanation for the overall reduction in the caseload figures, or the fluctuations in caseload sizes noted for individual LAs. This is an issue that RNIB hopes to explore further.

4.1.2 Number known to VI service but not on caseloadA further 1,202 children and young people were known to, but not being directly supported by the VI service. This figure is a slight under-representation as seven LAs provided no information and a further two gave only partial information. Reasons for not providing this information were either that it was not held by the LA or that the numbers were so small (i.e. under 5 individuals) that they could not be given due to data protection, as illustrated by the following quotes;

“We don’t hold any information concerning children /young people who are being educated in a non-LA provision.” (South West region)

“[Ages 5-16] less than 5 pupils educated in school for VI out of borough.” (North West region)

“Please see our responses added to your questions beneath but please note that, in accordance with DfE policy, numbers of 5 or fewer are suppressed (#) to reduce the risk of disclosing the identities of individuals.” (North West region)

“This data cannot be separated into categories of 17-19 years and 20-25 years as requested due to low numbers which could lead to the identification of an individual. Please see further details on Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 below.” (East Midlands region)

Table 5b: Number of children and young people with vision impairment, known to, but not receiving direct support from LA VI service (e.g. whose family home is in the LA but who are being educated in a non- LA provision)Age Number

(n=145 LAs)0 – 4 275 – 16 91217 – 19 18720 – 25 76Total 1,202

Two LAs provided additional information:

“They are off main caseload but archived if not supported by us so, zero. If they have a statement or EHC plan they are monitored by us so included in 5a.[no. on caseload] funding. This is being reviewed.” (London region)

“We would see these children if needed and they would be included above [in the caseload figures].” (North West region)

4.1.3 Total children and young people with VI in England

In total therefore, 26, 067 children and young people aged 0-25 with vision impairment were receiving some form of specialist educational provision in 2015.

Table 5c: Number of children and young people with vision impairment supported by or known to VI services (n=152)Age Number supported

by the VI serviceNumber known to, but not supported by the VI service

Total

0 – 4 3,952 27 3,9795 – 16 18,783 912 19,68517 – 19 1,899 187 2,08620 – 25 208 76 284Total* 24,865 1,202 26,067*The total exceeds the sum of the four age bands as one LA did not give an age breakdown, just an overall total figure and a further three members of a consortium gave <5 for ages 17-19 for the individual LAs but a total for the consortium as a whole.

4.2 Number of braillists

Table 6a: Number of children and young people who use (or in the case of EYFS children, are expected to use) braille as their sole or main literacy mediumWhether on VI service caseload NumberOn VI service caseload* 794Known to VI service but not receiving direct support** 259Total 1,054*Responses from 151 LAs**Responses from 146 LAs

A total of 1,054 braillists were identified, of whom 794 (75%) were supported by the VI service. The remaining 259 (25%) were known to the service but not receiving direct support because they were in specialist provision and/or being educated outside the LA. The total is a slight under-representation as a few LAs declined to provide figures due to the small numbers involved, or because they did not hold the information for braillists who were being educated out of the area.

[On caseload] “We can confirm that we hold the information however we are unable to supply it as we consider this information to be exempt due to low numbers.” (East Midlands region)

[On caseload] “Section 40 exemption applies.” (North East region)

[<4 not on caseload] “The response 4 or less is used for any category that has 4 or fewer individuals included. Where numbers fall below 4 data cannot be shared as identification of individuals may be possible.” (North West region)

[Not on caseload] “We do not hold this information because we do not record it.” (South West region)

[Not on caseload] “This information is currently not held, possibly not any [braillists].” (South East region)

In the previous two surveys we only requested numbers of braillists who were supported by the VI service, and if we look simply at those figures the numbers have dropped from 840 in 2013 to 794 in 2015.

Table 6b: Number of Number of children and young people who use (or in the case of EYFS children, are expected to use) braille as their sole or main literacy medium supported by VI services between 2013 and 20152013 (n=149 LAs) 2014 (n=150 LAs) 2015 (n=152 LAs)

840 787 799

It is notable that in 2013 only 149 LAs gave the number of braille users while in 2015 all 152 responded, although not all 152 provided complete numbers, as previously noted. The reason for the decline in numbers may be due to the fact that some learners who were being supported by the VI service in 2013 had by the following year moved to a different setting where they were no longer supported by the service, such as out of area provision. It could also simply be the result of better record keeping or genuine fluctuations in numbers over time.

Comments from four LAs indicated that another nine children were expected to be learning braille in the next year or two. A fifth LA was supporting a further five children (not included in the table above) who were learning braille but not currently using it as their main literacy medium. Their comments illustrate the uncertainty for VI services in planning ahead for the number of braille users that they may be required to support at any one time:

“...2 EYFS expected to use braille. 2 older children expected to use braille.” (South East region)

[Number of braillists]”13 (18 are learning braille in total).” (South East region)

“Currently 3 school age braillists. EYFS children who will potentially use Braille and children who may transition to Braille will increase this figure to at least 7, possibly 11, over the next three years.” (East Midlands region)

“One student using braille may be joining a Sixth form from alternative provision. One EYFS student expected to use Braille in the future.” (London region)“5 braillists and 2 pre schoolers who may be in future (North East region)

5. VI service policies

5.1 Criteria for determining eligibility for VI service support

Three LAs failed to respond to the question asking what criteria they used to determine whether or not a child with sight difficulties would be eligible for specialist support from the VI service.

From the responses given by 148 LAs, it was evident that across the country a wide range of criteria were being used, with 19 LAs applying more than one of the criteria listed in table 7a.

Q7a: Criteria used by VI services to determine eligibility for supportCriterion Number %NatSIP Criteria for Scoring Support Levels 109 71.7%Eligibility is based on the child’s visual acuity (VA) level

26 17.1%

Registration as severely sight impaired/blind or sight impaired/partially sighted

4 2.6%

Other criteria 30 19.6%No response 3 2.0%Not applicable 1 0.7%Note: the total exceeds 152 as some LAs gave more than one criterion

5.1.1 NatSIP criteria for scoring support levelsThe majority of LAs (71.7%) used the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) criteria for scoring support levels to determine criteria for support. A revised version was introduced in 2015 and the title has been changed from ‘criteria’ to ‘framework’. The document is intended to be used as a “tool for Sensory Services to use to guide decision-making over support allocation for individual children and young people with... vision impairment (VI)...through systematic consideration of a wide range of relevant factors... it relies on professional judgement and should only be used as part of a full assessment by a qualified specialist SI teacher.” (NatSIP, 2015, page 4).

Fifteen LAs used other criteria such as level of visual acuity (VA) in addition to the NatSIP framework. For example:

“ [NatSIP] in combination with professional judgement. [Visual acuity] A visual acuity not fully corrected by the prescription of glasses by an optician which is likely to affect his/her educational progress. [Other criteria] A combination of the above and professional judgement.” (East Midlands region)

[NatSIP and other criteria] Although led by a medical diagnosis the service understands that some young people may have a fluctuating condition, which can vary their eyesight throughout the day. Others may struggle in different environments. Some young people may have a syndrome of which visual impairment may be a part but has not been highlighted.” (London region)

“[NatSIP and other criteria] All Profound, Severe, Moderate & Mild seen – with VA’s of 6/15 and worse. All Early years seen no matter what VA’s are measured at. Eligibility Criteria used alongside NATSIP score.” (South West region)

Table 7b: Minimum score applied by LAs that use NatSIP Framework for Scoring Support Levels to determine eligibility for support from VI service (n=109)Minimum score

Number of LAs

Level of support NatSIP (2012)

Level of support NatSIP (2015)

70% and over 0 2 or more visits a week

2 or more visits a week

50% - 69% 1 Weekly Weekly40% - 49% 1 Fortnightly Fortnightly30% - 39% 0 Monthly Monthly25% - 29% 9 Twice termly Twice termly20% - 24% 10 Termly Termly15% - 19% 50 Twice yearly visits Twice yearly visits5% - 14% 11 Off caseload Annual check or visitUnder 5% 0 Off caseload Off caseloadOther 7Not given 20Total 109

LAs that used the NatSIP framework were asked to give the minimum score that would trigger entitlement to VI service support. As shown in table 7b, LAs varied considerably in terms of the minimum score that was applied. The levels recommended by NatSIP have changed slightly from the 2012 to the 2015 guidance; in 2012 the recommendation was for children who scored between 5-14% to be taken off the VI service caseload, but in the 2015 guidance this applied to any child who scored below 5%. It is likely that most LAs that responded would have been using the 2012 recommendations, as indicated by these comments:

“New NatSIP criteria will be introduced in September 2015.” (North East region)

“(Minimum score 15] but reviewing in light of recent 2015 revised criteria.” (London region)

The majority of LAs (61) used a minimum score of 15% or below, but 21 used a much higher threshold of 20% or higher. Given the range of minimum scores used by LAs, it is important to consider some of the comments provided, which show that in most cases a more nuanced judgement was being made.

Minimum NatSIP score 15% or below

“A minimum score of 15%, unless professional judgement indicates otherwise (based on the NatSIP Criteria, not the Framework).” (North West region)

“Use modified NatSIP ‘criteria’ – minimum score to receive ongoing support score 10+.” (London region)

“15% but if child has a named VI will accept with less than 15%.” (London region)

“[16%] All children have a functional visual assessment and medical information is sought. From this information a child will be accepted onto the caseload if they fulfil any of the following criteria: [the list includes a variety of medical, functional and social criteria].” (West Midlands region)

“Pupils scoring 15-19% are in the ‘annual monitor’ category. For pupils with scores of less than 15% a QTVI or mobility officer would give written advice if requested, but the pupil would not automatically receive any input from the service.” (North West region)

Minimum NatSIP score 20% and above

“Every child on the caseload has a minimum of an annual QTVI visit. 40% - 50% a minimum of 3 termly QTVI visits. Above 50% currently supported by a Learning Support Assistant from the service. Mobility Officer and IT technician visits are also provided.” (East Midlands region)

“Minimum score for VI service support: Generally under 24. But if there is a good reason to support we will and use professional judgment.” (London region)

“Currently use 25% score as a cut off, less than 2 visits a year.” (North West region)

“Above 25 = direct input.” (South East region)

“24 and below – advice.” (West Midlands region)NatSIP minimum score not used to determine eligibilityIn seven LAs, although the NatSIP framework was followed, either the minimum score was not used, or other factors were taken into account when determining eligibility for support. For example:

“The score is used as an indicator not as a cut-off point; other factors are taken into account including professional judgement. All support needs are moderated across the service.” (East Midlands region)

“We do not use a minimum score, all children are provided with some level of support.” (North West region)

“Service is available to all children with a VI diagnosis or those undergoing assessment whose sight cannot be corrected by glasses.” (West Midlands region)

Yes we use [NatSIP criteria] but not strictly adhered to as some children are on caseload because they have nystagmus and are supported at a low level. We have other criteria that we use to be on caseload.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

5.1.2 Visual acuity as criterion for VI service supportTwenty-six (17%) LAs based a child’s eligibility for VI service support on their level of visual acuity (VA) although in most of these LAs, this was in combination with NatSIP framework described in 5.1.1.

Nineteen of the 26 LAs specified the minimum VA level required for support to be given and although as can be seen from some of the comments below there was some flexibility/other factors were taken into account, it is a matter of some concern that in 15 LAs the threshold was set at 6/18 or higher.

“[Minimum VA for VI service support] with glasses (if worn) – have distance vision of 6/18 or worse although we also support CYP with VI who have:• reduced or defective fields of vision• deteriorating vision• a diagnosed visual condition.” [‘Other’ option also selected by this LA] (South West region)

“[Minimum VA for VI service support] as a baseline 6/18 or field loss or additional needs.” [‘Other’ option also selected by this LA] (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Eligibility is based on the child’s visual acuity (VA) level - minimum VA 0.5 LogMAR or where the field loss provides less than 90o field of view where there are professional concerns regarding a deteriorating loss then this would be taken into consideration.” (South East region)

“VA 6/18 but schools and parent/carer can request advice and support if CYP’s vision is a concern.” (South East region)

“[VA level] part of a range of assessment – minimum 6/18 (although pupils with nystagmus are now placed on caseload even if 6/12). (West Midlands region)

Four LAs appear to be applying extremely high thresholds for support. Of these, two did not provide details of the minimum VA but had also selected registration (see 5.1.3) as a criterion for VI service support, which indicates a minimum VA of 6/18.

The third LA had a minimum VA of 6/18 alongside a NatSIP minimum score of 50, while the fourth LA commented that the minimum level was:

“6/24 (or 6/18 plus field defects).” (London region)

In contrast to the above, several LAs specified VA 6/12 and in at least one LA there was no minimum VA:

“No minimum VA – depends on needs.” (West Midlands region)

“The minimum VA for service support is 6/12. However, on occasion a CYP may have support if they have a VA better than 6/12 if they have a deteriorating eye condition and it needs monitoring, or if there are concerns from the hospital.” (West Midlands region)

5.1.3 Registration as SSI/SI as criterion for VI service supportFour LAs specified that the child or young person had to be registered as severely sight impaired/sight impaired (SSI/SI) to be eligible for VI service support. Two of these had also given VA as a criterion although as stated in 5.1.2 above, neither had detailed the minimum acuity level (presumably it would be VA 6/18 in line with the registration threshold).

A third LA had given registration as SSI/SI as their only criterion but from the additional comments provided it is evident that they also used the 2015 NatSIP eligibility framework.

The fourth LA gave registration as SSI/SI as the only criterion for VI service support although in fact this small LA has no VI service. It also currently has no children or young people with VI within the LA but if registration really is the criterion for specialist support, the question remains open as to whether there are in fact unsupported (unregistered) children or young people with VI within the LA.

RNIB would not want to see any LA using registration as SSI/SI as a criterion for a child’s eligibility for VI service support. Registration status may be useful as additional evidence about the severity of a child’s vision but should be part of a range of factors when assessing need, not least because not all eligible children are registered.

5.1.4 Other criteria for VI service supportThirty (19.6%) LAs used other criteria to determine a child’s eligibility for VI service support. This was often in conjunction with the NatSIP framework but with other factors taken into account and emphasis on professional judgement:

“We take into account NatSIP criteria as well as the child’s visual acuity, although we also consider other aspects of a young person’s visual needs (e.g. field of vision etc.). In addition, a child’s eligibility for support from us is not determined solely by whether they are registered SI or SSI. A combination of all aspects is applied.” (London region)

“Simplified NatSIP criteria based on VA and additional factors including other needs and how well YP, setting and family are coping.” (South East region)

“[LA sensory service] have devised their own Eligibility Criteria system which is based upon NatSIP criteria but incorporating a number of additional factors including visual acuity, nature and prognosis of visual impairment, use of specialist equipment and need for specialist tuition/training, personal factors of child, and impact of visual impairment upon child’s progress.” (North West region)

Others appear to use their own, locally developed criteria:

“An outcome-based model which is compliant with the new SEND Code of Practice.” (East Midlands region)

“The service criteria for involvement is medical diagnosis of a VI which impacts significantly on learning.” (East Midlands region)

“[LA] use its own method of eligibility based on SERSEN [a precursor of NatSIP] and an individual assessment of the child’s needs.” (London region)

5.2 Changes in criteria for support since April 2014

Table 7c: Changes in eligibility criteria since April 2014 (n=142)Number %

Yes 13 8.6%No 129 84.9%No response 9 5.9%Not applicable 1 0.7%Total 152 100%

Thirteen LAs said they had changed their eligibility criteria since April 2014 and of these, three gave no details of the changes.

Of the ten LAs that did provide further information, three were planning to start using the revised NatSIP Eligibility Framework for Scoring Support Levels which had been introduced in summer 2015, and a fourth had started using the NatSIP framework recently:

“In-house Eligibility Criteria previously used. The VI service is now using NatSIP Eligibility Framework for Scoring Support Levels (2015).” (London region)

Three LAs indicated that they had extended service provision to additional groups of children:

“We now support temporally patched children where they are wearing a patch for an extended time during their school day and their vision is seriously reduced. This is only after an assessment and possible liaising with the hospital.” (East Midlands region)

“The criteria has been reviewed and improved, and now includes a specific range for children with diagnosed CVI.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“We wanted to include our pre-school children and those at special school and felt we needed to change some things to fit our local circumstances. It has not meant that fewer children are eligible.” (North West region)

One LA appears to have relaxed their threshold for support:

“Previously we focused more on visual acuity less than 6/18 but we have always used NatSIP too.” (North East region)

One LA had increased their threshold for support, although this had been a temporary measure:

“As a result of QTVI staff leaving the local authority we have slightly reduced the criteria. We have now appointed to the vacant posts and so will resume the previous criteria.” (North West region)

Finally, one LA referred to revised criteria in line with funding changes:

“The only change is the introduction of a revised Eligibility criteria (to start in Sept 15) due to the changes in the way funding has been distributed to schools in line with the new SEND reform/EHCP.” (South West region)

5.3 Criteria for allocating levels of support for children and young people with VI

Table 8: Criteria used by VI services for allocating levels of supportCriterion Number %*NatSIP Eligibility Criteria for Scoring Support Levels (2012)

93 61.2%

An earlier version of the NatSIP/SERSEN Eligibility Criteria

7 4.6%

Modified NatSIP/SERSEN criteria 34 22.4%Banding system 20 13.2%Locally developed criteria 25 16.4%Other arrangement (please give details) 7 4.6%The (Wales) Visual Impairment Pathway 1 0.7%No response 2 1.3%Not applicable 1 0.7%* Note: the total exceeds 152 as some LAs gave more than one criterion

Having ascertained what criteria LAs apply when deciding whether or not a child is eligible for VI service support, in a related question we asked what criteria they used to allocate levels of support.

Not surprisingly in view of the high number of LAs that used the NatSIP framework to assist them in determining eligibility for support, the majority

also turned to NatSIP for guidance in allocating support levels. Ninety-three (61.2%) LAs used the 2012 Eligibility Criteria, seven (4.6%) used an earlier version, and 34 (22.4%) used a modified version of the NatSIP guidance.

Twenty-five (16.4%) LAs used locally developed criteria, 20 (13.2%) used a banding system, and eight (5.2%) used another method, including one that used the Wales Visual Impairment Pathway.Several LAs used a combination of the above methods to allocate levels of support, with a small number of LAs combining the latest version with an earlier or modified version.

5.3.1 NatSIP eligibility criteriaIn total, 100 (65.8%) LAs used a version of the NatSIP eligibility criteria to allocate levels of support, and a further 28 (18.4%) used a modified version of the NatSIP criteria. Several commented that they planned to start using the new NatSIP Framework for Scoring Support Levels, which had been introduced in summer 2015.

Other LAs also emphasised that the NatSIP criteria were not used alone, but in combination with other factors such as professional judgement, local factors or the individual needs of the child:

“The staff also use professional judgement to ensure that an immediate need is met.” (North West region)

“But looking at NATSIP 2015 - NATSIP provides a general spread but local factors are also considered. Also depends on how much support that is available, we tend to put in less support than NATSIP suggest...Special school support is negotiated with them and focussed on capacity building except for the totally blind emergent literacy children.” (North West region)

“[Banding system for pupils in special schools] Matrix developed by ourselves.” (South West region)

“This will be based on individual need of the child, for example a competent Braillist would not receive full time LSA support as this would be deemed unnecessary as the aim of the service is to make CYP independent.” (East Midlands region)

5.3.2 Criteria other than the NatSIP eligibility criteriaTwenty-two (14.5%) LAs did not currently use NatSIP but instead used a banding system or locally developed criteria to allocate support, although three of these LAs nevertheless made reference to NatSIP criteria:

“We use our own developed criteria, however, we are in the process of cross referencing our local system with the NatSIP Eligibility Criteria for Scoring Support Levels (2012).” (London region)

“Guidance is taken from the NatSIP Criteria in conjunction with professional judgement considerations from QTVI to make a decision on classification of level of support. This leads to the relevant support being allocated to meet the current needs to access the curriculum, make progress and achieve good outcomes. This is reviewed annually, or more frequently if circumstances change.” (London region)

“We use a slightly modified NatSIP criteria for scoring support levels with banding.” (North West region)

Of the remaining 19 LAs that used another method, only three provided information about the method used:

“Discussion between QTVI teacher and supervising senior teacher at monthly supervision sessions. A scale of 1-10 is used with 1 being an annual visit to 10 which is 9 hours a week.” (East Midlands region)

“Range Guidance.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“[None] Criteria are limiting. The service uses medical diagnosis of visual impairment (including all children with a Certificate of Visual Impairment) , reviews the Profile of Need and then creates an individual plan.” (London region)

5.4 Criteria for assessment for an EHC plan for children and young people with VI

LAs were asked to give details of their criteria for assessment for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for children and young people with vision impairment. Seven LAs failed to respond to the question.

A further six LAs, while responding to the question, nevertheless provided no information. Reasons given were that they did not know, the information was held by someone else in the LA, there were no criteria at present/none formally published or – in the case of one LA, a ‘not applicable’ response was given with no further explanation.

“Information for this section is needed from the LA’s EHC co-ordinator.” (London region)

“Not known.” (London region)

“Currently under review and has not been formally agreed yet.” (North East region)

“None formally published.” (West Midlands region)“N/a.” (North West region)

The remaining 139 LAs that did give details varied considerably in the amount of information provided: some sent documents that detailed the LA’s EHCP policy; some provided considerable information within their questionnaire; and some gave the web link to the relevant page or document on the LA’s website.

There was also a great deal of variation between the 139 LAs in their criteria for EHC plans for blind and partially sighted children and young people, with one in three making no direct reference to vision impairment. The actual tone of the responses ranged from an emphasis on process – often simply citing the Graduated Response detailed in the SEND Code of Practice – to an emphasis on the individual needs of the child. Others were concerned with the severity of the child’s vision impairment and/or the resource implications.

Analysis of the content of the responses identified a number of factors that were taken into account by LAs. Some LAs focused on a single factor and others a combination of the factors listed below:

Severity of the child’s vision impairment Additional SEN or disabilities Cost of support (i.e. above a certain level) Setting in which the child would be placed (e.g. special vs mainstream) Impact of VI on learning and/or other outcomes Additional support/resources required Individual needs of the child Process led approach with reference (explicit or implicit) to the Code of

Practice

The selection of quotes below gives a flavour of the different approaches:

5.4.1 Severity of the child’s vision impairment:

“Registered severely sight impaired. Registered sight impaired with additional visual difficulties (e.g. restricted field loss, nystagmus, deteriorating condition.” (North West region)

“Clinical diagnosis of visual impairment.” (Eastern region)

“The LA SEND Graduated Approach documents for Early years, 5-16 and16-25 say that an EHC is appropriate where the CYP:

has a significant visual impairment, or is educationally blind, and needs to use a format such as Braille or large print for reading purposes

and/or where the CYP requires significant adaptation to the environment in order to move safely and/or formal mobility training (long cane)

and/or where the CYP has a visual acuity of 6/60 or less, plus a reduction in near vision, a significant field defect or a known deteriorating visual condition

and/or where the CYP has a visual acuity of 6/36 and there is clearevidence that this significantly impairs his/her access to the curriculum.” (Eastern region)

“One or more of the following: Little or no vision and requires access to the curriculum through a

non-sighted method Corrected visual acuity of 6/60 or less Corrected visual acuity of 6/24 or less and there are significant

additional visual difficulties e.g. severely restricted field of vision Unable to read below point 18 print and has difficulty interpreting

pictorial resources A medical prognosis that indicates a need to prepare the child for

learning through non-sighted methods Emotional and social skills are impacted by their visual

impairment.” (West Midlands region)

5.4.2 Additional SEN or disabilities

“Most of the pupils with VI have historically received a Statement due to additional SEN. Straightforward VI children have not usually been put forward for Formal Assessment, unless the VI is profound and requires a very high level of specialist input and direct support. Those children receiving Education Health and Care (EHC) plans have either got additional Special Needs or are profoundly visually impaired.” (North West region)

“Children with a single disability do not need an EHC plan as their needs are met from within the LA Vision Support Service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

5.4.3 Cost of support

“Additional support has been given through a statement of SEN/EHC when the additional needs of a young person have amounted to more than 9.5 hours/week of TA support (or £6000). In addition to this the service is also trialling additional funding from the LA for lower levels of need where there is only an educational need (ie not Social Care or Health Needs) where funding is sourced without the need to go through an EHC.” (East Midlands region)

“A level of need which cannot reasonably be met within the placements’ existing resources. Evidence that placement has sought & implemented specialist professional recommendations and strategies which have accounted for the first £6,000 of the cost of meeting those needs.” (London region)

5.4.4 Setting in which the child would be placed (e.g. special vs mainstream)

“CYP who would attend a special school or resourced base. Usually MDVI pupils.” (London region)

“In [LA] a statutory assessment will begin when: The child/young person has not responded to relevant and

purposeful measures with High Needs intervention and requires a specialist placement or may require one within the next 18 months, for example at transitionOR

Requires significant integrated multi-agency response to address the severity and complexity of need where the child/young person will need significant assistance in the areas of personal care, mobility, communication, equipment/accommodation, healthcare, education which may require support from Health and Social Care which may have been identified through a CAF (Common Assessment Framework). (South West region)

5.4.5 Impact of VI on learning and /or other outcomes

“To merit an assessment for an EHCP the CYP need to clearly demonstrate a special educational need i.e. Very low attainment levels due to VI/ learning difficulties.” (London region)

“Level 3 Access Criteria NatSIP Eligibility Criteria 46-70 Pupil is not accessing the curriculum appropriately as a direct result of their visual impairment or pupil is demonstrating significant anxiety about their

school experience. Concerns raised to Specialist Teachers of Visually Impaired Children by parents and/or school and issues remaining despite Level 2 interventions being put into place and monitored over a minimum period of 6 weeks. Consider referrals to other agencies if Level 3 intervention has been implemented and school have been able to demonstrate Level 1, 2 and 3 provision over at least a term – then discussion to be held over consideration for request for EHC assessment.” (West Midlands region)

“All CYP with a mild, moderate, severe and profound VI are assessed. Firstly, levels of involvement via NatSIP eligibility criteria. Then it is done on need basis and how it affects the individual and their learning, e.g. some CYP with mild/moderate VI may need a EHC Plan due to a combination of needs or others are very independent in their learning as long as there are hours attached to an EHC plan for preparation of materials. Others need targeted support because their VI has impacted on how they learn, touch typing, braille, specialist equipment etc.” (London region)

5.4.6 Additional support/resources required

“Schools have to provide the equivalent of 15 hours of TA support before an EHCP is agreed.” (London region)

“...Referral for an EHC, would be made by a QTVI when the child requires a substantial level of specialist support :over 3 hours of support per week alongside the provision of specialist equipment following the graduated approach to SEN described in the Code of Practice.” (North West region)

“Access to the VI service is not dependent on an EHC Plan. A plan would be issued if assessment evidenced that the pupils needs could not easily be met from within the school’s existing resources. We respond to all requests for assessment and written Specialist Advice for any student known to the VI service...” (North West region)

5.4.7 Individual needs of the child

“Based on individual needs of pupil.” (East Midlands region)

“Each case taken on an individual basis, using a holistic consideration of the child or young person’s needs.” (London region)

“There is no strict criteria for assessment. An early help assessment is carried out upon initial referral. All children and young people are

assessed holistically and full assessments are carried out by appropriate professionals to include vision, habilitation, social and emotional wellbeing. The views of the individual and their family are taken into consideration during the compilation of a robust personalised plan to inform the EHC process.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

5.4.8 Process led approach with reference (explicit or implicit) to the Code of Practice

“An integrated assessment and Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan may be required for children and young people with SEND aged 0 to 25 years if the following apply:

The child or young person has severe and/or complex long term needs that affect everyday life and functioning

The child/ young person requires provision and resources that are not normally available

Intensive help and support is required from more than one agency

There is evidence of a graduated response from the school and other agencies involved in supporting the child/ young person

Despite high levels of support, the child/ young person is making limited or no progress. (East Midlands region)

“EHC criteria is based on the Code of Practice.” (East Midlands region)

“Has severe and/or complex long-term needs that affect everyday life Requires provision and resources that are not normally available in a

mainstream school Requires intensive help and support from more than one agency Evidence that despite high levels of support is making limited or no

progress Evidence of a graduated response; i.e. appropriate interventions,

support and resources available through the Local Offer and educational settings, have already been put in place.” (London region)

5.5 Groups of children and young people with VI not supported by the VI service

Fifty-nine LAs (38.8%) said there was at least one group of children and young people with vision impairment that they did not support. It is notable that one LA had used the NatSIP Framework to justify withdrawing support from children and young people belonging to all three groups (i.e. age, setting or complex needs) with:

“...VA of 6/12 or less who are Service Aware (advisory only). Direct support withdrawn as a result of applying the criteria from NatSIP and producing a score below 21.” (Eastern region)

Table 9a: Any groups of children and young people with VI that are NOT supported by the VI service

Number %Yes 59 38.8%No 86 56.6%No response 6 3.9%Not applicable 1 0.7%Total 152 100%Table 9b: Groups of children and young people with VI that are NOT supported by the VI service (n=59)Group of CYP Number of LAs % of all LAs*Specific age groups 34 22.4%CYP in specific types of setting 35 23.0%CYP with complex needs 12 7.9%Any other groups 7 4.6%Not applicable 1 0.7%*Although 59 LAs said there were groups of CYP they didn’t support, the percentages are given as a proportion of all 152 LAs in England

5.5.1 Specific age groups not supported by the VI serviceAll but two of the 34 (22.4%) LAs that did not support specific age groups said, or implied, that this applied to young people aged over 16, 18 or 19 (depending on the policy of the LA concerned). Ten of the 32 LAs that did not provide support to the older age groups also stated that they did not support these young people in certain types of setting such as FE colleges. Most of the LAs concerned said that they had never supported young people in this age group/type of setting.

Seven LAs did not support young people aged over 16 unless they were still at school:

“...post 16 unless in a [LA] School...The service has never provided a service to FE colleges.” (East Midlands region)

“16+ in colleges unless our service is bought in by them...Never previously supported.” (East Midlands region)

“Students that are post 16 and do not have an EHCP...Prior to September 2015 students that are post 16 were not supported by the VI service at all.” (South East region)

“We are currently not supporting young people who have left school. This may be from 16-19 years of age...This support was never provided.” (West Midlands region)

“+16 unless in a school based 6th form...Service has always been funded through Schools Forum therefore support to 16 only.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

Twelve LAs did not support young people over the age of 18:

“19-25 (currently, but will need to be reviewed in light of revised SEND Code of Practice.” (South East region)“Those that have left statutory education or are aged 19. Whichever is the latest.” (London region)

“19-25 years old – advice provided via telephone/email....Not withdrawn.” (South East region)

“Aged 19-25 year olds have never been supported by service unless bought in by college.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“19-25...Never part of the service agreement with LAs.” (North East region)

Ten LAs did not support young people over the age of 19:

“We have never supported YP in 20-25 age group.” (London region)

“Age groups 20-25. Not withdrawn, at the moment YP in further/higher education access support from other sources or from specialist staff if they are attending specialist placement out of borough.” (London region)

20-25 year group, historically have never been supported; decisions around their support will be decided at LA level.” (London region)

From the quotes given above and also in 5.5.2, it is evident that there is considerable variation not only in the way that LAs are currently supporting young people over the age of 16, but also in their response to the SEND reforms relating to this age group, and to their relationships with further education colleges and other post-school settings.

5.5.2 CYP in certain types of setting not supported by the VI serviceThirty-five (23%) LAs did not support children and young people with VI in certain types of setting. The types of setting that this applied to were:

independent schools, FE and other types of post-school setting, and specialist settings with provision for pupils with VI.

For continuity from the previous section, we will start with the 12 LAs that did not support young people in post-school settings. It appears that despite the new Code of Practice which extends entitlement to support for young people up to the age of 25 with an EHC plan who are in education or training, a significant minority of LAs are not yet engaging fully with the further education sector. Funding arrangements and FE colleges making their own provision/failing to buy in support from VI services appear to be two of the factors involved.

“For Post-16 students who do not stay on in a school’s 6th form provision, i.e. students following courses in the local FE College. There is provision for the FE Colleges to buy-in support under a Service Level Agreement, but they are usually self-sufficient at deploying their own in-house staff or arranging for their own buy-ins... Support has not been withdrawn as it was never funded. We are funded through the High Needs Block of the Direct Schools Grant which does not include funding for students in FE and HE colleges.” (London region)

“Further education establishments but this is under review as part of the 0 to 25 changes in EHCP’s. If there is no ECHP in place post school, only a transition report and one off visit/training is offered to FE at present...We have not previously supported children [sic] in further education colleges, so no change.” (West Midlands region)

“Post 16 not in LA maintained schools or academies...Young people are supported as part of a transition programme into post 16 provision. The LA is presently looking at how we support this group of students in the future, with the view to carrying out statutory duties as part of the EHCP / SEN Support i.e. vision assessments and advice.” (North East region)

“Young people attending further education in a college...Core visits undertaken, case closed unless school or setting purchased additional service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“Colleges of FE currently make their own arrangements to support students with visual impairment. This does not mean necessarily that the students will receive no support, however, it at the moment would not be from the VI team.” (North West region)

“FE and HE students where the college or university does not purchase a service from [LA]This has been the situation for the last 25 years.”

(South East region)

Fifteen LAs did not provide support to children and young people in independent schools:

“Within independent school settings where the student does not have a Statement or EHCP... It is consistent local authority policy with regard to independent schools support.” (London region)

“We do not go into independent schools but there have been exceptions to this where it is agreed with the local authority.” (South West region)

“Schools not maintained by [LA] i.e. private settings. Support goes in to all pre-school settings as required... [Since] 2011, following discussion with the Local Authority and legal advice on the use of high needs funding.” (North West region)

“If no EHCP or statement then independent schools would have to pay an hourly rate or through a SLA for ongoing support and advice once statutory duties have been met.” (West Midlands region)

Eight LAs did not provide support to children and young people in specialist settings for pupils with VI, or where there was a QTVI based at the school. In all eight LAs therefore, adequate, alternative provision was being made for the pupils concerned:

“Our all age special school for children with complex needs has their own teacher of the VI. Children in out-borough special schools where there is a teacher of the VI e.g. RNIB Sunshine House School – we attend transition reviews.” (London region)

“Children attending special schools for VI e.g. Linden Lodge or Worcester College. However children and young people attending this type of provision are provided with Mobility and Habilitation support in the home area, and staff attend some annual reviews.” (London region)

“Those within a secondary resource provision are supported directly by that provision.” (London region)

5.5.3 CYP with complex needs not supported by the VI serviceTwelve (8%) did not support children and young people with complex needs, although in most cases this appears to be where the pupils were in settings where alternative specialist provision was made. There were a small number of exceptions, however:

“Only provide advice if VI is first or second SEN listed.” (North West region)

“Eight children on advisory list in special schools...Direct support withdrawn as a result of applying the criteria from NatSIP and producing a score below 21.” (Eastern region)

“Schools within the LA still in the process of establishing required support...Core visits undertaken, case closed unless school or setting purchased additional service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“At special school....Following consultation, the service was restructured in April 2013. (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

5.5.3 Other groups of CYP not supported by the VI serviceWhile seven LAs said there were other groups of children and young people not supported by the VI service, only one gave further details, indicating that they did not support pupils in out borough specialist schools for pupils with VI.

6. Joint working with other agencies

6.1 Arrangements for working with health and social care

Table 10: VI service arrangements for working with health and social careType of arrangement Number %Established arrangement with Health for referring babies and children to the VI service

128 84.2%

Multi-disciplinary meetings with health and social care

109 71.7%

Regular meetings and/or contact with social care 77 50.7%Regular meetings and/or contact with health 114 75.0%Other 43 28.3%No response* 6 3.9%

The new Code of Practice which came into effect in September 2014 places emphasis on joint working between health, education and social care services and provides guidance on the joint planning and commissioning of services to ensure close co-operation between the three agencies. The importance of early intervention and support is recognised in the Children and Families Act (2014), and for babies and young children with vision impairment, prompt referral from health to education is crucial to reduce the developmental risks associated with vision impairment.

Responses to questions about the relationship between the VI service and health and social care revealed a wide range of professional working practices in place. Additional comments provided by respondents provided examples of innovative models of inter-agency collaboration, while in others there appeared to be far less contact between education, health and social care.

6.1.1 Relationship between VI services and healthThe majority (84.2%) of LAs in England had an established arrangement with health for referring babies and children to the VI service, and three quarters of LAs (75%) had regular meetings and/or contact with health. However, in the two LAs below, although an established arrangement for referrals from health was in place, it was noted that they weren’t always effective:

“Established but not as effective as we would expect.” (South East region)

“But some well known national hospitals aren’t so good.” (South East region)

Of the 18 LAs that said they did not have an established arrangement for referrals from health, ten had regular contact with health, five had some other type of arrangement and one LA attended regular meetings with health and social care. Nevertheless, for 12 of the LAs it was unclear what (if any) referral arrangements were in place between health and the VI service and in a further two LAs there were no referral arrangements in place and apparently no formal contact between the VI service and health or social care. Nevertheless, there was clearly some contact between health and social care, as indicated by this comment from the latter of the two LAs:

“We welcome referrals from both agencies [health and social care] but do not have any formal arrangements...all the arrangements are informal.” (West Midlands region)

Further insights into what was happening in LAs that lacked formal referral procedures are provided by these quotes:

“[No formal contact with health or social care] However, [name] eye hospital contact us.” (North West region)

“Although [hospital] do refer in, there is no formal arrangement. Work is in progress to improve the referral system. Community paediatricians regularly refer in.” (North West region)

“Due to the low numbers of support, referrals and meetings with relevant professionals take place on a needs basis...” (North East region)

“We work closely with [health and social care], but there are no established, formal arrangements/pathways. We depend upon direct referrals from practitioners working in the above fields. Hospital referrals are reliant upon individual consultants/paediatricians and a VISTA (local VI charity) family support officer referring following children’s clinic.” (East Midlands region)

Despite the rather ad hoc (and in some cases, seemingly inadequate) arrangements discussed above, there were several examples of partnership working between the VI service and health, such as:

“Monthly joint clinic (QTVIs and health). (East Midlands region)

“We attend some hospital visits with parents to the low vision aid clinic etc. Some joint visits to schools are made with physios and OTs.” (London region)

“Monthly meetings with the ophthalmology dept at [name] hospital.” (North West region)

“We take part in a monthly ophthalmological clinic involving a visiting consultant ophthalmologist in addition to the other local health arrangements which are based on a referral of an identified child by phone, secure email or letter.” (West Midlands region)

6.1.2 Relationship between VI service and social careIn just over half (50.7%) of LAs the VI service had regular contact with social care, which is fewer than the number that had regular contact with health (apart from multi-disciplinary meetings between the three agencies detailed in 6.1.3 below).

Where information was provided by LAs, it appears that where regular contact did occur, this tended to relate to specific groups of children and young people, or in relation to specific types of support needs.

“For particular groups, e.g. LAC [Looked After Children].” (London region)

“Meetings with adult sensory enablement team regarding children transitioning to adult services.” (London region)

“Regular meetings with the adult sensory team and multi-disciplinary vision team.” (North West region)

“If appropriate – determined by CYP needs. Also, habilitation workers in the VI service meet with adult rehab workers as needed.” (South East region)

“Regular meetings with ROVIC team – part of [name or organisation]...” (South West region)

“We hold termly meetings with the orthoptist and termly meetings with the head of the Children’s Disability Team (Social Care). Then we have close contact and liaison with health and social care if the needs of a particular child are complex.” (North West region)

The following comment from one LA that currently did not have regular contact with social care, may be an example of the new legislation driving better practice:

“It is anticipated that these meetings will occur from now on where children and young people have EHC needs assessments/plans.” (North West region)

6.1.3 Joint working between education, health and social careIn over seven in ten (71.7%) LAs the VI service held multi-disciplinary meetings with health and social care. As illustrated by the following quotes, LAs differed in terms of the groups of children the meetings applied to and the contexts/ frameworks within which they were organised.

“Generally pre-school.” (London region)

“As part of CAF process.” (North East region)

“EYMAG (early years multi agency group) monthly meetings in each of three areas across [LA}.” (North West region)

“Early intervention meetings, TAC and CIN meetings.” (West Midlands region)

“Early Care Co-ordination and Team around the Child multi-agency meetings.” (East Midlands region)

“The team is based in a multi-disciplinary Centre for CYP and so has easy access to health and social care colleagues.” (London region)

“[LA] Sensory Impairment Support Service are part of [LA] Complex and Additional Needs Service. This is a multi agency team incorporating professionals from Education, Health and Social Care.” (North West region)

“Regular contact with health and social care professionals at Education Health and Care Plan meeting, Looked After Children meetings, Multi Agency meeting for children on caseload.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“If it’s [meeting] part of an EHC plan.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

6.1.4 Relationship between VI service and other organisationsTen LAs provided details of arrangements in place with voluntary sector organisations. These included local societies as well as national organisations for people with vision impairment and in a small number of cases, the VI service took part in meetings that spanned the voluntary and statutory sectors.

“Attendance at 2020 Vision Strategy meetings. Attendance at multi-agency ‘access all areas’ meetings (looking at the needs of different disability groups across [LA].” (North West region)

“Regular meetings with paediatric sub-group of the Low Vision Group – parents, [name] Association for the Blind, education, health and social care representation.” (South East region)

6.2 Vision impairment register for children and young people

Table 11: Who holds the LA vision impairment register for children and young people

Number %Social care sensory team 65 42.8%Social care children’s team 43 28.3%Local society for blind people 13 8.6%Other 33 21.7%Unsure 1 0.7%No response 11 7.2%*The percentage column exceeds 100% as some LAs gave more than one response

We were interested to see which team was responsible for the vision impairment register for children and young people as research carried out for RNIB (Boyce, 2015) indicates that not all LAs are maintaining the register for children and young people. Eleven LAs failed to respond to the question and a twelfth said they were unsure who held the register.

Two LAs stated that in their LA there was no VI register for children and young people. It is a matter of concern if LAs are failing to maintain their register for children and young people. Not only does this deny children and families important benefits associated with registration, but LAs may be failing in their duty to keep accurate data on children with severe vision impairment. As noted in the SEND Code of Practice: “Local authorities should ensure that registers of disabled children and young people, and particularly details of those with a vision or hearing impairment, are kept accurate and up to date, as such low-incidence needs are particularly difficult to plan for from national data sets” (SEND Code of Practice 2015, para 3.28).

Of the 139 LAs that responded to the question and did have a register, 11 said that it was held in more than one location/by more than one agency.

In most LAs (42.8%) the register was held by the adult social care sensory team, while in over a quarter (28.3%) it was held by the social care children’s

team. Fewer than one in ten (8.6%) LAs said that the local society for people with vision impairment held the register, while just over one in five (21.7%) said it was held by another agency.

6.2.1 Social care sensory team holds VI register for CYPIn most LAs (65) the register was held by the adult social care sensory team, although comments from these three LAs that had selected the ‘other’ option suggest that the actual figure may be slightly higher.

“[name] (Sensory Enablement team, part of adult social care).” (London region)

“Adult visual impairment services.” (London region)

“Sensory Impairment [LA] County Service (name), part of [name] Services, commissioned by [LA] to provide specialist professional and rehabilitation services for visually impaired people in [LA].” (East Midlands region)

The following quote provides evidence of liaison between the social care sensory team and the VI service; further examples of co-operative working are given in 6.2.3 and 6.2.4.

“The sensory team now informs us of any new registration.” (South East region)

6.2.2 Social care children’s team holds VI register for CYPIn over a quarter (43) of LAs the children’s register was held by the social care children’s team, with two LAs providing further details of the arrangements in place:

“The CVI registration process is completed by a ROVIC and the register is then held within the LA.” (South West region)

“Children’s team – they hold the disability register which could include children and young people who are blind or partially sighted.” (London region)

The previous quote refers in fact to the register for disabled children, which is separate to the register of children and young people with vision impairment. The LA concerned has an extremely small population and in this case it is debatable whether there would be justification for holding a VI register for children.

6.2.3 Local society holds VI register for CYPIn 13 LAs (8.6%) the local society for people with vision impairment held the register, and in two of the 13, the register was also held by another team/agency.While one of these two LAs had selected ‘yes’ for each of the four options given, the second LA provided the following information:

“Technically the Local Authority holds the register. The registration is completed by Habilitation Officers with the Local Society for Blind People. This is work that is part of a Service Agreement which is purchased jointly by Social Care and Education. When the registration has been completed the information is passed to the VI Service who enter this onto the Local Authorities SEND data base.” (South East region)

The quote below is another example of co-operation between the VI education team and the agency that holds the register:

“[Local society] We have a copy of their registration kept in paper files and submitted as evidence for a request for an EHC plan.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

6.2.4 Other holders of VI register for CYPIn 33 LAs the VI register for children was held by another agency or organisation. Of these, 14 LAs indicated that the register was held by education. For example:

“Until recently CVIs went to the adult VI centre. Now they are directed to our service.” (North West region)

“We currently hold the database and new registrations of any children are sent to us.” (North West region)

“Habilitation workers in the VI service manage the CVI registrations and add to the register.” (South East region)

“Sensory consortium.” (South East region)

“Specialist teaching team/family information service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

Two LAs indicated that the register was held by Health, one of whom said that the holder was the Eye Clinic Liaison Officer (ECLO

The comments from this LA suggests that they were querying the usefulness of the VI register:

“The Social Care Register of children who are blind/partially sighted is voluntary, so is not complete (some parents do not want their children to be registered). The most complete database for children with visual impairment is kept by the education service (Sensory Impairment Team, Learning Support Service), but this is not an official ‘Register’.” (North West region)

While the following LA, which had indicated that the social care sensory team and an unspecified ‘other’ held the register, appears to offer a solution to the problem experienced by the previous LA:

“Collaborative working between the education service for VI children and young people and the children’s social care team for children with disabilities. This method has been shown to produce the most complete register of certificates.” (London region)

7. VI service staffing

7.1 Qualifications of VI service strategic manager

Table 12: Qualifications held by the person with responsibility for strategic management of the VI service

Number %*Qualified teacher of pupils with vision impairment (QTVI) (i.e. holds the mandatory qualification (MQ) in VI)

98 64.5%

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

37 24.3%

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

8 5.3%

Other qualifications 34 22.4%

No response 6 4.0%Not applicable 2 1.3%*Note that in many LAs the person with responsibility for strategic management of the service had more than one of the above qualifications so the total exceeds 152.

For two LAs this question was not applicable as they had no VI service and at the time of the survey, no children and young people with VI. Six LAs failed to respond to the question.

In 98 LAs the head of service was a QTVI (often with another qualification, such as TOD or QTMSI). Where the HOS was not a QTVI:

In 26 LAs they were a TOD In 1 LA they were a QTMSI In 19 LAs they did not hold a qualification in sensory impairment

Only six of the 19 LAs where the head of service did not hold a qualification in sensory impairment gave details of the qualifications that were held. Of these:

3 were educational psychologists 3 had a graduate or post graduate qualification in SEN

A seventh LA was unable to provide any information for the following reasons:

“[TOD up to September 2014] From that date to present, the strategic manager does not hold a Sensory Impairment qualification. This structure is currently under review.” (North West region)

7.2 Number of specialist teachers employed by the VI service

Table 13: Number of teachers employed directly by VI services (peripatetic/advisory and school based teachers and VI service manager if s/he has a caseload) (n=147 LAs)

Number of teachers

Number as full time equivalent (FTE)*

QTVI with mandatory qualification (MQ) (VI) 496 350.6

In training for MQ (VI) 47 32.2

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

29 19.7

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

6 4.1

QTMSI with MQ (MSI) 33 16.2

QTVI and QTMSI MQ (holds both qualifications) 22 15.6

QTVI vacancies currently advertised 9 6.5

QTVI vacancies – advertised but no suitable applicants

7 4.4

Total 649 449.3*This is an under-representation of the true figure as some LAs did not give FTE

The figures are for 147 out of the 152 LAs in England. For two LAs this question was not applicable as they have no VI service and currently, no CYP with VI.

In total, 551 teachers with the mandatory qualification (MQ) in VI or MSI were employed by 147 VI services. A further 76 were in training or about to start training in the next few years. Six teachers neither had the QTVI qualification nor were expected to begin training within the next two years. There were 16 vacancies for QTVIs and seven of these were unfilled because no suitable applicants had come forward. In total therefore, 633 teachers were employed by VI services in 2015, and there were 16 unfilled posts. This compares with 615 teachers, and 24 unfilled posts reported in 2014.

7.2.1 QTVI caseloadsIn a separate analysis we looked at the number of QTVIs against the size of the caseload. Our aim was to find out the extent to which the ratio of QTVIs to children and young people they were supporting differed across LAs. While we would expect some variation in view of factors such as the number/proportion of higher needs children (e.g. braillists, early years, those from deprived backgrounds), and the geography of the LA where travelling time would need to be taken into account, we were surprised at the very wide variation that we found. In some LAs the size of the caseload was such that we would question the level of support that the VI service would realistically be able to provide. In particular, there were several small LAs that appeared to have excessively large caseloads per QTVI. For example, we identified six LAs with only one QTVI supporting over 100 children (in three of the six this included several braillists) and a further six LAs where the QTVI to caseload ratio was approximately 1:100.

This is a topic that requires further investigation as it raises important questions about the future viability of provision in some LAs.

7.3 Number of teaching assistants providing support to pupils with VI

Table14a: Number of teaching assistants (TAs) providing support to pupils with vision impairment (includes service and school based staff) (n=146 LAs)Employment arrangements Number of TAsEmployed and recruited directly by VI service – centrally based/peripatetic

317.95

Employed and recruited directly by VI service – school based

170.4

Employed and recruited directly by schools and supported by VI service

2153.7

Employed and recruited directly by schools with no involvement from VI service

86.5

Other arrangement 27.1

Total 2,755.65

The figures detailed in table 14a are for 146 out of the 152 LAs in England. For two LAs this question was not applicable as they had no VI service and currently, no children and young people with VI.

Eighteen LAs gave the number of TAs as FTE so the number of people employed is greater than the total recorded in table 14. By rounding up each

of the FTEs to the nearest whole number (with the exception of a consortium of six LAs where it was evident that the posts were shared), the total is increased to 2,764. However, as discussed in 7.4.2, this is likely to be an under-estimate of the actual number of people.

7.3.1 TAs employed centrally by VI serviceIn only 84 LAs (55%) were TAs employed centrally by the VI service (either on a peripatetic basis or school based). Between them they employed 488.33 TAs, or 495 if we round the FTEs up to the nearest whole number. Little information was provided about how the centrally based TAs were deployed, other than the comments from these LAs:

“5 centrally based peripatetic to support braillists only.” (London region)

“Centrally employed shared between HI and VI.” (South West region)

“LA currently funds 25 hours TA support for braille users – one TA currently employed with this funding.” (West Midlands region)

“[TAs employed centrally; Also support children with PD.” (West Midlands region)

“TAs are school based but work in more than one school, dependant on need each term.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“We have two specialist provisions (Primary and Secondary); some staff are TAs in provision only and do not have a peripatetic role. (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

This LA, which did not have any TAs employed centrally by the VI service selected the ‘other’ option and explained that one TA was:

“Funded by the LA but based in our VI friendly school, does reprographic and resources work plus Braille and Mobility training in other schools.” (London region)

7.3.2 TAs employed directly by schoolsThe number of TAs employed directly by schools to support pupils with VI, with some involvement from the VI service, was 2,154.

By adding the number of TAs employed and recruited by schools but with no VI service involvement (87 rounded), brings the total number of TAs employed directly by schools, who were supporting pupils with VI, to 2,241.

However, this is an under-representation as many LAs were unable to provide numbers of TAs employed directly by schools to support pupils with VI, or were only able to give an approximate figure, as illustrated by the following selection of quotes:

“Not possible to quantify, as data not held centrally.” (London region)

“This information would be held by the school.” (London region)

“[LA education provider] does not hold details of TAs working with pupils with VI in schools.” (London region)

“This is a major piece of work to find out across 4 LAs and hundreds of schools.” (South West region)

“Numbers not available as TAs are employed directly by the schools, not by [LA] County Council.” (South East region)

That information about numbers of TAs was not available raises questions about how much specialist support and supervision VI services are providing to TAs who are not employed directly by the LA. A few LAs provided further information about the VI service’s role in relation to TAs employed directly by schools:

“No formal arrangement, but advice and guidance given to TAs employed directly by schools to work 1:1 with CYP with a profound loss.” (North West region)

“Only those TAs employed in resource provisions have no support from the VI service...” (South East region)

The LAs whose comments are given below, noted that some pupils may be receiving TA support for other needs as well as their VI, or their TA might also support other pupils:

“... There are many children with statements which mention a VI who have a TA employed by school. I can get you the numbers.” (North West region)

“Many schools have TAs who provide some support to pupils with VI as part of their job. They receive support from the VI service.” (London region)

“...because of health needs as well as VI – special schools.” (London region)

“VI support can be attached to other support for the SEN child so unable to give you a number.” (London region)

7.3.3 Comparison with 2014 figuresBecause in the 2015 FOI some LAs had given the number of TAs as the FTE (in 2014 the number of people and the FTE had been requested) it is not possible to make a direct comparison between the two time periods. However, by comparing the rounded 2015 figure with the total number of TAs recorded in 2014, we have 333 more TAs recorded in 2015 than in 2014. The number of LAs that responded to this question in 2014 was 148 and in 2015 it was 146.

The biggest increase by far is in the number of TAs employed and recruited directly by schools and supported by the VI service. In 2014 the number recorded was 1,662 compared to 2,154 in 2015 representing an increase of 492 TAs. If we include the number of TAs employed and recruited by schools but with no VI service involvement (87), the total number of TAs employed directly by schools who were supporting pupils with VI rises to 2,241 in 2015. This is 392 more than had been identified in 2014.

In contrast, the number of TAs employed centrally by the VI service has decreased by 42, from 537 in 2014 to 495 individuals in 2015.

Table14b: Number of teaching assistants (TAs) who are providing support to pupils with vision impairment (includes service and school based staff) in 2014 and 2015Employment arrangements Number in

2015*(n=146 LAs)

Number in 2014(n=148 LAs)

Employed and recruited directly by VI service – centrally based/peripatetic

323 391

Employed and recruited directly by VI service – school based

172 146

Employed and recruited directly by schools and supported by VI service

2,154 1,662

Employed and recruited directly by schools with no involvement from VI service

87 187

Other arrangement 28 45

Total 2,764 2,431*As some LAs gave the number as FTE, we have rounded up to the nearest whole number so the figures given are approximate

7.4 Other staff employed or externally commissioned by the VI service

In addition to questions about QTVIs and TAs, LAs were also asked to give the numbers of staff in other roles that were employed or commissioned by the VI service. The figures presented in table 15 are for 147 out of the 152 LAs in England. For two LAs this question was not applicable as they had no VI service and currently, no children and young people with VI. A small number of LAs did not give the FTE equivalent so the figures shown in the FTE column in table 15 are a slight under-representation.

In total, 424 members of staff other than QTVIs, QTMSIs and TAs were employed directly by VI services in 147 LAs in England. This is 13 more than were recorded as being employed by 152 LAs in 2014, but 15 fewer than had been recorded in 2013.

Table 15: Other staff employed directly, and staff externally commissioned by VI services (n=147 LAs)Type of post Number

of peopleNumber as full-time equivalent (FTE)

Number of externally commissioned staff

Resource technicians (for production of accessible materials)

88 59.68 4.1

ICT support technicians 39 24.87 1.8

Dedicated early years staff 28 13.76 0

Mobility/rehabilitation officer 29 12.5 9

Mobility/habilitation officer for children

111 71.30 33.65

Admin/secretarial 86 35.43 2

Other 43 25.5 2.4

Total staff 424 243.04 52.95

7.4.1 Resource and ICT techniciansEighty-eight resource technicians with responsibility for the production of accessible materials, and 39 ICT technicians were employed by LAs giving a total of 127 staff (84.55 FTE). A further 5.9 (FTE) ICT and resource technician

posts were externally commissioned. This brings the totals to approximately (due to commissioned posts being given as FTE) 92 resource technicians and 41 ICT technicians employed, or commissioned, by VI services in 85 LAs. The 85 LAs included several that were members of a consortium or joint arrangement, with some staff shared by all, but employed by only one, of the LAs.

Three LAs that had not recorded employing or commissioning any resource or ICT technicians gave the following information, which is in addition to the figures recorded above: One LA indicated that they employed fewer than five ICT technicians but

did not specify the exact number, which was presumably for data protection reasons

One LA stated that ICT technicians were “Commissioned on a needs basis.” (London region)

One LA stated that their 0.8 admin support “Also provides technical support and some resourcing of curriculum materials.” (North West region)

Therefore, if we exclude the two LAs with no VI service and currently no children or young people with VI within the LA and the three that failed to respond to this question, it would appear that in 59 LAs the VI service neither employed nor commissioned resource or ICT technicians.

Four LAs that did have access to ICT/resource staff noted that the post was either a dual role combining a range of responsibilities, or was shared with a wider sensory service:

“ICT support technicians from resource technicians as required.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“[Resource technicians] Two of our TAs spend about 50% of their time on resource production”. (North West region)

“Two admin roles also resource technicians.” (North West region)

“[ICT support technicians]1.0 across the sensory service.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

7.4.2 Mobility/habilitation officersTwenty-nine mobility/rehabilitation officers and 111 habilitation officers were employed by LAs giving a total of 140 staff (71.30 FTE). A further nine mobility and 34 (rounded up) habilitation officers were commissioned. This brings the totals to approximately (due to commissioned posts being given as FTE) 38 mobility/rehabilitation and 145 habilitation officers employed, or

commissioned, by VI services in 122 LAs. The 122 LAs included several that were members of a consortium or joint arrangement, with some staff shared by all, but employed by only one, of the member LAs.

Five LAs that had not recorded employing or commissioning any mobility or habilitation officers gave the following information, which is in addition to the figures recorded above: Two LAs said that mobility/habilitation support was provided by the adult

social care team One LA indicated that they employed fewer than five mobility/habilitation

officers but did not specify the exact number, which was presumably for data protection reasons

One LA said that a mobility/habilitation officer for children was “commissioned as required from [special VI] School”.

One LA said that externally commissioned mobility/habilitation was a “contracted service by value”, but no staff numbers were given.

Therefore, if we exclude the two LAs with no VI service and currently no children or young people with VI within the LA and the three that failed to respond to this question it would appear that in 20 LAs the VI service neither employed or commissioned, or bought in from another provider, specialist staff to provide mobility and independence training for children and young people. It is possible that in some of these LAs mobility support was provided but there is no indication from any of them whether or not this was the case. One of the 20 LAs provided further information in their response to a subsequent question, however:

“...This coming year will see the service addressing the lack of a Mobility/Habiliation Officer...” (North East region)

The number of LAs that commissioned their mobility/habilitation officer from an external provider was 37. Of these, one commented that the commissioned post was “covering a 0.4 vacancy” and a second said that the post was ending in July 2015.

7.4.3 Early years staffFifteen LAs between them employed 28 (13.76FTE) members of staff to support children in the early years. None were externally commissioned. This number includes two TAs who “are heavily involved in early years”. (North West region)

7.4.4 Administrative/secretarial staffBetween them 70 LAs employed 86 (35.43 FTE) administrative or secretarial staff and a further two LAs each commissioned one person bringing the total to 88 administrators. While 75 LAs did not employ or commission

administrative staff solely for the VI team, we know from additional information provided that in at least ten of these LAs, there were other administrative staff available to support the VI team. For example:

“[VI team has] access to centralised business support teams.” (Eastern region)

“Generic admin staff available to whole service.” (North West region)

“Admin staff are employed for the whole advisory service and not specifically for or by the VI service.” (South East region)

“[Admin]... services are provided by staff employed and recruited directlyby the service for the use of advisory teachers for VI, HI, MSI, PD and PSS Post 16.” (South East region)

“HVSS does not employ admin directly, it receives a surcharge at the end of the year that includes all adminstrative costs including admin staff costs from the business support dept.” (South West region)

“Have access to the generic admin officer for the Learning Support Service. No dedicated VI admin support.” (North West region)

As already recorded in 7.4.1, it appears that in some LAs, administrators took on other roles such as assisting with production of resources.

7.4.5 Other staff rolesIn 33 LAs the VI service employed or commissioned staff in roles other than those detailed in table 15. Forty-three (25.5 FTE) staff were employed and a further three (2.4) were commissioned.

There was a wide range of posts some of which are listed below: Specialist children and families/family support officers Assistive technology teacher/tutor Specialist ICT trainer Social inclusion facilitator Post-16 specialist worker Touch typing tutor Braille instructor Resource co-ordinator providing training to TAs across the LA Resource (not materials) & Data Officer Support Manager for sensory service team Risk assessor Bursar

As the list indicates, in many LAs posts have been created to meet the specific needs of the individual VI service.

7.5 Staff posts lost or gained since April 2014

Six LAs failed to respond to our question asking whether VI services had lost or gained any staff posts in the year since 1 April 2014.

Table 16: Whether VI services have lost or gained any staff posts since 1 April 2014

Number %Yes 50 32.9%No 93 61.2%Other / not applicable 3 2.0%No response 6 4.0%Total 152 100%

A seventh LA gave a ‘not applicable’ response as they had no VI service. Two LAs did not answer the question, but commented:

“Joint management system that operated with [LA] is no longer in place.” (South East region)

“A like for like comparison cannot be made as the service and staffing responds to the number of children to be support. The only change is one reduced teaching assistant post but if the number of pupils to be supported arose this number could rise accordingly.” (London region)

Table 17: Number of posts lost or gainedType of post Number of posts

lostNumber of posts gained

Managers 5.0 0

QTVIs 3.6 10.9

Teaching assistants 8.2 10.7

Resource technicians 3.9 0.3

ICT support technicians 1.5 1.4

Dedicated early years staff 0 1.0

Mobility/rehabilitation/habilitation officer 0 4.1

Admin/secretarial 0 1.25

Other 1.0 3.8

Total* 23.20 33.45*These should be seen as approximate figures as some posts may have been part time but not recorded as FTE.

A small number (five) of LAs had indicated that posts had been lost/gained when in fact members of staff who had left, had been replaced, although in one LA the replacement had fewer hours and in a second a part-time post holder had been replaced by a full-time member of staff. The figures presented here have therefore been adjusted to reflect the actual number of posts (including as FTE) that were lost or gained over the year from 2014 to 2015.

A third of LAs had lost or gained staff posts, and in three in five (61.2%) there had been no change. A small number had both lost and gained staff (e.g. the loss of a TA post but an extra QTVI in one LA).

Overall, 23.20 staff posts had been lost and 33.45 gained in the 145 LAs that responded to this question, giving a net gain of 10.25 posts. However, these should be seen as approximate figures as it is possible that some part time posts may have been recorded as individual members of staff, and vice versa where the full time equivalent (FTE) has been recorded rather than the individual post holder.

7.5.1 Staff posts gained since April 2014Thirty-six LAs had gained staff posts in the previous year, although it is important to note that seven of these LAs were members of consortia where a single new post was shared between three or four LAs.

Most of the posts that had been gained were QTVIs (10.9 FTE) and TAs (10.7 FTE). The previous caveat regarding the actual numbers applies, although 4.1 posts for mobility/habilitation officers had also been gained, which is a positive finding if it means that greater emphasis is being placed on development of mobility and independence skills. ‘Other’ posts were:

2 teachers who were in/about to start training for the mandatory qualification as a QTVI

1 QTVI who was training for the mandatory qualification as a QTMSI 1 specialist children and families officer

Little additional information was provided about the reasons for these increases, but it appears that several of the gains were due to an increase in the number of hours allocated to existing posts, or where hours taken from one post had been re-allocated to another:

“[TA post] 18 hours a week increasing to 30 from September.” (North West region)

“Dedicated early years staff – created new post from reduction in QTVI hours.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

7.5.2 Staff posts lost since April 2014Twenty-two LAs had lost staff posts in the previous year. It is possible that this should be 23 LAs, as one LA indicated that they had lost or gained a post but did not specify which. The post concerned was for a mobility/ rehabilitation/habilitation officer, and from the information about VI service staffing provided in the LA’s 2014 and 2015 FOI responses, it appears likely that they have lost 0.4 of a post.

Most of the posts that had been lost were for TAs (8.2) but there had also been losses of resource technician and ICT technician posts. In four LAs more than one type of these support posts had been lost. We also know that at least one of the TA posts lost had been replaced with a QTVI.

In contrast to the 18 LAs (including a shared post in a consortium of four LAs) that had gained a QTVI/QTVI in training post since 2014, five LAs had between them lost 3.6 (FTE) QTVI posts in the same period. Five manager posts had also been lost. Again, there was little additional information provided to give insight into the circumstances under which these posts had been lost:

“[Manager] Sensory service manager currently vacant and unadvertised.” (North West region)

“[Manager] QTVI without case list was strategic manager of sensory support service (under which VI is one of four professions – HI, MSI, PD, VI).” (South East region)

“[0.6 QTVI] Unable to recruit.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“[TA and 0.4 resource technician] Not [lost] through cuts but from natural changes to staff leaving or reducing hours.” (North West region)

8. Proposed future changes to the VI service

As reported in section 3.3, 20 (13.2%) LAs had introduced changes to VI service provision, management and/or funding arrangements in 2014/15, while 50% of LAs had had a reduction or increase to the VI service budget. Looking forward to 2015/16, in two final questions, we asked LAs whether they had any formal proposals in place for future changes to VI service funding and/or organisation, and secondly, whether there were any proposals for future changes to VI service policies and/or practices in educational support for children and young people with vision impairment.

As can be seen in 8.1 and 8.2 below, around one in five LAs were anticipating changes to VI service funding, organisation and/or policies over the next few months.

8.1 Formal proposals for future changes to VI service funding and/or organisation

Seven LAs failed to respond to the question asking whether there were any formal proposals in place for future changes to the way the VI service was funded and/or organised.

Table 18: Formal proposals for future changes to the way that the VI service is funded and/or organised

Number %Yes 34 22.4%No 103 67.8%Uncertain/under review 7 4.6%No response 7 4.6%N/a 1 0.7%Total 152 100%

Reassuringly, over two thirds (67.8%) of LAs had no formal proposals in place for changes to the VI service, but more than one in five (22.4%) were anticipating changes. Seven LAs (4.6%) were uncertain as the service was currently under review – this includes six LAs belonging to a single consortium:

“Service will be reviewed September 15 - November15 with resulting proposals to follow.” (South East region)

“This is currently under review. A consultation paper is due out in the autumn term.” (London region)

8.1.1 LAs with proposals to change VI service funding and/or organisation

Thirty-four (22.4%) LAs did have proposals in place to make changes although of these, five provided no further information.

The changes detailed by the remaining 29 LAs can be put into the following broad categories:

Changes to staffing levels/posts Organisational/management changes Review ongoing or planned Move to commissioning the service/external commissioning

Changes to staffing levels/postTwelve LAs (including four members of the same consortium were anticipating changes to staffing. In ten of the 12 there would be net increases in staffing, a post was being revised in one LA and in the twelfth there were to be job losses.

“Recruitment of one additional Orientation and Mobility Officer is in progress and is about to be advertised. ASAP” (London regiion)

“Losing the 2 TA’s that are currently employed by the VI service. These will be replaced with a full time QTVI with some MSI experience. Hopefully in place by January 2016.Also provision of a Mobility / Habilitation Officer (0.4 FTE), hopefully by January 2016.” (North East region)

“ICT technician will qualify as a habilitiation officer this year we are planning to look into changing the role to include some habilitation work.” (Yorkshire and Humberside region)

“1st September 2015. The VI service will merge with the hearing impairment service to become the Sensory Impairment Service. This will involve the loss of 10 LSA posts and 1 resource technician and the employment of 2.2 additional QTVIs.” (East Midlands region)

Organisational/management changesEight LAs (including the one quoted above under ‘changes to staffing levels/post’ gave details of proposed changes to the way the VI service was currently managed and/or organised, some of which were quite significant. For example:

“A review of Special Educational Needs and Disability was undertaken between July 14 – December 14. The recommendations for change from this review have been approved by our Children's Committee and

the Health and Wellbeing Board. In relation to the Sensory Needs Service the following recommendation was made: That the SEN education and learning support services in the city (Educational Psychology Service, Pre-school SEN Service, Behaviour and Inclusive Learning Team, Literacy Support Service, Speech and Language Support Service, Autistic Spectrum Condition Support Service, Sensory Needs Service) are co-located and combine to form one ‘communication and support service’ with unified professional leadership and management” (South East region)

“Discussion about possible movement of the service from EIP to SEND part of the education department.” (North West region)

“[LA] are currently going through a ‘competitive dialogue’ with potential bidders to form a new joint venture company with the LA. This is not yet finalised.” (London region)

Ongoing or planned reviewFive LAs were in the process of, or planning a review of the service or some aspect of the service. Additionally, one LA that had given a ‘no’ response to this question commented:

“However the model of delivery of SEND Services will be reviewed during the next 12 months.” (West Midlands region)

While two LAs were undergoing or anticipating a general review, the other three described specific aspect of the service that were under scrutiny:

“The whole of the high needs funding block will be reviewed in preparation for 2017-18 financial year so we may be affected.” (Eastern region)

“Currently a commissioned service. The LA is currently undertaking a review of commissioned services.” (London region)

“In 2013-14 the VI Service was managed by two HI teachers – one having responsibility for pre-school children across HI and VI (across the sensory service) and once having responsibility for school age children across HI and VI.From 2014-15 the VI Service has temporarily been managed by the generic Head of SEN Service due to one of the teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) sensory teachers going on maternity leave.The future management structure across the Sensory Team is currently undergoing further review.” (North West region)

Move to commissioning the service/external commissioningFour LAs referred to possible changes in commissioning arrangements – either to becoming a commissioned service, or to moving the entire service over to an external provider.

“Proposals for an alternative delivery model has been put before Cabinet. Sensory Support is in Phase 2 of this strategic development. [LA] will commission Services in the future. We do not have dates or details of when changes will take place.” (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 Councils aspirations to become an excellent commissioning authority, rather than a provider of Services, whilst achieving key priorities in the corporate plan. Prospective providers have been invited to meet with the Local Authority as part of an extensive procurement process. Service providers will be identified by July 2015.” (West Midlands region)

“Audit currently under way linked to commissioning of service to special school.” (West Midlands region)

“Probable move to commissioned service in 2016 yet to be decided.” (North West region)

This quote from a fifth LA suggests that commissioning may be being considered for the future:

“Market testing but date not known.” (London region)

8.2 Proposals for future changes to VI service policies and/or practices in educational support

Table 19: Proposals for future changes to VI service policies and/or practices in educational support for CYP with VI

Number %Yes 27 17.8%No 107 70.4%Uncertain/under review 9 5.9%N/a 1 0.7%No response 8 5.3%Total 152

Eight LAs failed to respond to the question asking whether there were any proposals for changes to VI service policies and/or practices in educational support.

Nine were uncertain – as for the previous question, this was because the service was currently under review.

Seven in ten LAs (70.4%) were proposing no changes, but in almost one in five LAs (17.8%) changes were being proposed.

8.2.1 LAs with proposals to change VI service policies and/or practices in educational support for learners with VI

In 27 (17.8%) LAs there were proposals to change VI service policies and/or practices in educational support for children and young people with vision impairment, although five LAs gave no information about the type of changes.

The changes detailed by the remaining 22 LAs can be categorised as follows (note that a few LAs gave changes in more than one category):

Extension of service to older learners/post school settings Changes in provision for pupils: staffing and/or practices Changes in eligibility criteria Other

Extension of service to older learners/post school settingsEleven LAs were planning to extend their support to older learners and those in post-school settings, in line with the new Code of Practice, although most were still exploring how this might be achieved.

“Young people in FE/post 16 settings. Increase in the support levels following statutory regulation changes since 2014.” (South West region)

“Development of new ways of working in response to New Code of Practice, e.g. impact of 16-25/CYP who may have an apprenticeship with an EHCP.” (South West region)

“Provision to mainstream Colleges of FE – advisory support and equipment?Provision for 19 – 25? Discussions ongoing, should be resolved before the start of the next academic year.” (North West region)

“How we interface with colleagues in our [name] (16+ Service) in light of new SEND legislation e.g. roles and responsibilities.” (West Midlands region)

Changes in provision for pupils: staffing and/or practicesNine LAs were planning changes designed to improve provision for certain groups of pupils. This could be through staffing changes, staff training, or educational practice. For example:

“...How we apportion support to high needs C&YP with VI in accordance with our new revised AEN matrices.” (West Midlands region)

“A proposal to convert one Instructor post into more QTVI time is being investigated to see if this would better help meet the predicted needs of the children on caseload in the near future.” (London region)

“UEB [unified English braille] training for whole team over next eighteen months. Proposal to extend staffing based on high no of Braille users.” (London region)

“Policies and practices for sensory impairment are reviewed/revised regularly. This coming year will see the service addressing the lack of a Mobility/Habilitation Officer and, following recruitment and the addition of 'Mobility' to the NatSIP Eligibility Criteria, writing a policy relating to the development of independence in VICYP.'” (North East region)

“We are currently carrying out our own review and looking for effective ways of supporting CYP with VI – we have seen an increase of braille users with additional needs attending mainstream schools and are developing ways of supporting them effectively.” (South West region)

A tenth LA was however, reducing some of its central TA support and was therefore considering an alternative way of providing support to the pupils who would be affected:

“We currently provide LSA support from centrally employed LSAs, although this will still be the case in some instances, particularly for braillists, other students will be supported through modelling and advice.” (East Midlands region)

Changes in eligibility criteriaTwo LAs were introducing new NatSIP eligibility criteria:

“To implement new NatSip Eligibility framework September 15.” (North East region)

“Review of criteria using NatSIP as a basis.” (North West region)

Other changesFour LAs referred to other changes. Of these, two were unable to give details as they were pending reviews that were planned/currently taking place; one was consolidating an area based model of delivery, and the fourth gave a general statement about its ongoing responsiveness to changes in legislation and the needs of the LA.

ConclusionThis was the third Freedom of Information (FOI) survey of local authorities in England that has been carried out by RNIB since 2013, and over this period we have tracked the changes that have been made to educational provision for children and young people with vision impairment. The two drivers for change have come from national government. These are: 1) The austerity agenda, which has led to dramatic cuts in central government funding to local authorities, many of which have responded by re-organising VI services as one of many initiatives to reduce budgets; and 2) Reforms to legislation relating to children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) and/or disabilities through the Children and Families Act 2014 and a new SEND Code of Practice.

The surveys have found that the pace of change to VI services has not been consistent over the country, in that some LAs responded to the cuts in public sector funding almost immediately by re-organising and/or reducing staffing in VI services, while others have taken longer to do so. Some LAs appear to recognise the importance of having a well resourced VI or sensory service, while others seem not to appreciate the value of specialist staff and have either gone down a more generalist route, or have cut VI service staffing levels. As a consequence, there are LAs in which VI service staff are striving to maintain provision despite caseloads of over 100 learners to one QTVI. In other LAs the response has been a rationing of provision, thereby excluding certain groups of pupils from specialist support.

For example, we have seen that most LAs (71%) use the National Sensory impairment Partnership (NatSIP) framework to determine eligibility for VI service provision. Nevertheless, because VI services differ in how they apply the criteria (the minimum score for VI service support ranges from 5% to 50% in one LA), there is very little standardisation across the country.

The finding that around one in ten LAs based a child’s eligibility for VI service support on the level of visual acuity (VA) with the threshold set at 6/18 or higher, and/or required to be registered as severely sight impaired or sight impaired (SSI/SI) is a matter of concern. 6/18 VA is a high threshold and raises questions about what (if any) specialist support is available for children with VA below this threshold whose vision impairment is still likely to impact on their development and learning. That four LAs use registration as a criterion is of particular concern. Registration status may be useful as additional evidence about the severity of a child’s vision but should be part of a range of factors when assessing need, not least because not all eligible children are registered

We have also seen that despite the legislative changes that have extended entitlement of specialist support to young people with SEND up to the age of

25 if they are in education or training, young people over the ages of 16/18/19 belong to the group that is currently not supported by the VI service in a number of LAs. While a few LAs are actively seeking to improve provision to these older learners, it is apparent that others are struggling with the idea of supporting learners in post-school settings.

Another issue that has emerged is the very large – and increasing – number of TAs employed directly by schools rather than centrally by the VI service. This is a phenomenon that we are likely to see continuing in line with the drive to grant greater autonomy to schools through the academisation programme. At present we have no way of knowing what training these TAs have received, and how the specialist nature of their support is being supervised.

Yet it was also apparent from the findings that some LAs are continuing to invest in their VI services so that there are still some services that are well resourced. There was also evidence of good multi-agency working and innovative professional practice. Other LAs need to learn from these positive examples.

The current situation therefore, is one of significant variation across LAs in terms of models of organisation and management, staffing and resources, and policies and practices. The effect for children, young people and families is a postcode lottery.

ReferencesKeil S (2015) 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. RNIB