go – RNIB supporting blind and partially sighted people
RNIB survey on changes to VI service staffing
and provision for blind and partially sighted
children and young people in England and
Wales
Final Report
November 2010
Sue Keil and Rory Cobb
Children, young people and families team
Evidence and Service Impact
RNIB
Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Method
2.1
2.2
Questionnaire survey
Response rate
2.3
Analysis
3.
Findings
3.1
Geographical areas covered by the survey
3.2
Loss of posts since the beginning of 2010
3.3
Posts at risk of being lost or frozen
3.4
Reduction in support for children since the beginning of 2010
3.5
Risk to future support for children and young people
3.6
Implications for children of actual or proposed changes to VI
service staffing or provision
3.6.1 Effect on provision for children and young people
3.6.2 Future models of provision and funding
3.6.3 Workload and staffing issues
3.6.4 Uncertainty
3.7
Evidence and arguments that have been used to support the case
for retaining appropriate levels of staffing and provision
3.7.1 Cost effectiveness/value for money/quality of current provision
3.7.2 Risks associated with change/reduction in service
3.7.3 Statutory obligations/national policies and guidelines
3.7.4 External support
4.
Conclusion
2
1.
Introduction
In the late summer and early autumn of 2010, members of RNIB’s
Children, Young People and Families team were approached by a
number of local authority (LA) advisory services for children and young
people with visual impairment (VI). The services were under threat of
staff cuts and/or re-organisation that would put the educational support
for blind and partially pupils at risk. The heads of services had contacted
RNIB requesting advice and evidence that they could use to support their
case against the cuts.
These threats to service provision were taking place in the context of a
major national financial deficit and the newly elected coalition
government undertaking a Comprehensive Spending Review. The
results of the review, released on 20 October 2010, would have
significant implications for the future of public services in the UK.
In order to ascertain whether the potential threat to VI services was
isolated to a few services in a minority of LAs or was more widespread,
in September 2010 RNIB undertook a questionnaire survey of VI
services in England and Wales. The findings are presented in this report.
2.
Method
2.1
Questionnaire survey
A questionnaire was circulated to heads of VI services via the Heads of
Sensory Services (HOSS) e-mail forum in mid September 2010. The
questionnaire was also circulated separately to the regional heads of VI
services groups in England and to all heads of VI services in Wales.
2.2
Response rate
A total of 58 completed questionnaires were returned. Fifty were from
England, seven from Wales and one from Scotland. As the funding and
organisation of VI services in Scotland differs from that in Wales and
England this questionnaire was omitted from the analysis, although RNIB
is hoping to carry out a separate survey in Scotland to represent the
experiences of services there.
3
As not all VI services belong to the HOSS forum it is not possible to give
a precise response rate as a few services may not have received a copy.
However, a conservative response rate is 33% for England (based on
150 LAs) and 32% for Wales (based on 22 LAs. This gives an overall
response rate of 33% or one third of LAs in England and Wales. In fact
the actual response rate is likely to be higher as some VI services are
members of a consortium, with a single service supporting children
across several LAs.
2.3
Analysis
Responses were entered onto an Excel database. Responses to open
questions, which invited comments, were recorded in Word format and
subsequently coded by theme.
Quotes from respondents in Wales that are included in the report have
been given the prefix 'Wales' and those from England have the prefix 'E'.
3.
Findings
3.1
Geographical areas covered by the survey
As already noted, the majority (50) of the 57 responses included in the
analysis were from heads of VI or sensory services in England, with a
further seven from services in Wales. For England there was a good
geographical spread, with responses received from all nine of the local
government regions. Although some respondents were heads of sensory
services, their responses refer specifically to the situation for VI services
that support blind and partially sighted children and young people.
3.2
Loss of posts since the beginning of 2010
Heads of services were asked whether, since the beginning of 2010,
they had lost or had frozen any staff posts. As table 1 shows nearly a
quarter (23%) of services had lost posts since the start of the year
because staff that had left voluntarily had not been replaced and 2% had
lost posts through staff being made redundant. Twenty-three percent had
had vacant posts frozen.
4
Table 1: VI services in England and Wales that have lost staff posts
or had their hours reduced since the start of 2010 (n = 57)
Reason for loss of post
Number of
Percentage
services
of services
Posts lost through redundancy
1
2%
Posts lost because staff have not been
replaced for strategic or budgetary
reasons
Vacant posts frozen
13
23%
13
23%
Some services had experienced both loss of posts and had vacant posts
frozen. In total, over a third (35%) of services had been affected in this
way.
Included in this total is a small number of services where the hours of a
post had been reduced rather than lost completely. For example:
“Mobility – part time replacement (reduction from 1 to 0.4)”
[E21]
In addition, these two heads of service were unsure whether posts were
going to be replaced:
“I do have staff reducing hours for phased retirement and
have not been given a green light as to whether those hours
can be replaced or not.” [E10]
“There is a recruitment freeze, but I have been able to submit
evidence for justifying the recruitment and have been allowed
to recruit. But this term I have an ATVI vacancy and they [will
not] consider my case for recruitment till they know the
outcomes of the CSR on Oct 20th. I was told it’s morally
questionable to offer employment when we may be having to
cut posts.” [E44]
In total, 29 staff posts have been lost, frozen or had their hours reduced
since the beginning of 2010, the majority of which (15) were QTVI posts.
Five TA posts have been lost or frozen and nine other types of post, as
shown in table 2.
5
Table 2: Number and types of staff post lost or reduced in hours
since the start of 2010 (n = 57)
Type of
Posts lost
Posts lost
Vacant
Total
post
through
because
posts
number
redundancy staff have
frozen
of posts
not been
replaced
QTVI
7
8
15
TA
1
2
2
5
Other
7
2
9
Total
1
16
12
29
The nine other types of post affected were:
2 x mobility officers
1 x rehabilitation officer
1 x Specialist inclusion support practitioner
1 x Intervenor
1 x Braille Support Assistant
2 x Resource officers/technicians
1 x details not given
3.3
Posts at risk of being lost or frozen
In a separate question, respondents were also asked whether their
service was currently at risk of losing or being unable to replace staff
posts or to having them frozen.
Table 3: VI services that are at risk of losing staff posts or having
their hours reduced (n = 57)
Reason for potential loss of post
Yes Unsure No
%
%
%
Posts lost through redundancy
7%
19%
74%
Posts lost because staff are not being replaced for
strategic or budgetary reasons
Vacant posts frozen
21%
19%
60%
26%
12%
61%
As can be seen from table 3, while just under three quarters (74%) were
confident that their services were not at risk of losing staff through
redundancy, there was less certainty about losing posts through natural
wastage or having them frozen. More than a third of heads of services
6
knew, or were concerned about potential loss of posts for either of these
two reasons. Just over one fifth (21%) said they were at risk of losing
posts because staff who left would not be replaced and more than a
quarter (26%) said there was a risk that posts would be frozen.
Table 4: Number and types of staff post at risk of being lost or
reduced in hours after October 2010 (n = 57)
Type of
Posts lost
Posts lost
Vacant
Total
post
through
because staff
posts
number
redundancy may not be
frozen
of posts
replaced
QTVI
1
3
2
6
TA
1
1
Other
7
2
9
Total
2
10
4
16
A total of 16 posts were regarded as at risk, six of which were QTVI
posts and nine other types of post such as rehabilitation officers and – in
particular – resource assistants/technicians. One service has two fulltime and four part-time posts at risk of being frozen in the near future.
Respondents were asked to comment on their responses, and here is
what some of them said:
“All posts are frozen for recruitment/replacement unless
deemed special cases. It may be possible (though I don’t
currently know the likelihood of this) to have VI teachers made
a special case but all VI technical staff will not be.” [E20]
(It is notable that the above respondent reported elsewhere that
they have already had one senior VI teacher post frozen.)
“[Redundancies possible] There is currently a service
restructuring programme in place, which will be auditing our
service this term…If any member of staff (teacher, assistant or
mobility specialist) were to leave our service the post would
no longer exist.” [Wales37]
“A total spending freeze was imposed on Aug 19th on travel,
equipment, photocopying paper etc. Have just heard that 25%
cuts are about to be imposed so we are expecting the
worst…Voluntary Termination Scheme reoffered and a
7
number of staff are interested but if they go they can’t be
replaced…” [E42]
“No evidence, but strong indications that we are in a period of
“convenience” cuts i.e. non-replacement of staff who retire. I
have 2 x teachers of the VI who could retire at the end of the
academic year. The service has been asked to provide
possible retirement dates for staff”. [E13]
“We have all just been issued with ‘risk of redundancy’ letters.
The LA plan is unclear to date.” [E45]
“We have been told that only ‘front line services’ will be able
to replace staff but it is not clear what a ‘front line service’ is
yet. We are also being encouraged to carry a vacancy factor.”
[E24]
“We are anticipating that, when staff leave (one of the VI
teachers is due to retire at the end of this academic year) they
will not be replaced due to budget reduction/savings which
will have to be made.” [E34]
"Voluntary severance has been offered and we're waiting to
find out if any of the VI team will be granted this. I personally
don't anticipate losing a VI [team] member BUT if someone
senior (non-VI) goes there will be extra admin work for the
team leader VI without any extra time." [Wales58]
3.4
Reduction in support for children since the beginning of 2010
Heads of services were asked whether, since the beginning of the year
they had reduced or withdrawn support for particular groups of children
or young people. The results are detailed in table 5.
8
Table 5: Groups of blind and partially sighted children who have
had reduction in support from VI services in 2010 (n=57)
Category of
Number of services Percentage of
children/YP
that have reduced
services that have
or withdrawn
reduced or withdrawn
support
support
Children in the early years
CYP without
6
11%
statements of SEN
CYP whose sight
12
21%
difficulty is below a
certain threshold
CYP with complex
7
12%
needs
Other groups of CYP 2
4%
Twelve services – more than two in five of the total – said that service
provision to children whose sight difficulty was below a certain threshold
had had their support withdrawn or reduced since the beginning of the
year.
“We have changed our criteria so that we now only retain on
caseload pupils whose visual acuity is 6/15 or worse
(previously the threshold was 6/12). We have also been
through the ‘lower level needs children’ and moved them to
‘on-request’ more strictly than we would previously have done
in order to be able to concentrate available time on pupils with
‘higher needs’.” [E34]
“Increasing[ly] we have to look at VA measures and move
children to request only that…have had a little more
discretionary advisory support which we can no longer
provide.” [E52]
Support for children and young people with complex needs had been
affected in seven (12%) LAs:
“We continue to be unhappy with the level of support and
advice we are able to give to the large number of children in
city special schools (just under 200 pupils) – however, we are
unable to increase this support given current staffing levels.”
[E34]
9
“Support to children in special schools (MLD SLD) has been
reduced – combined reason – staffing difficulties, but also
plan has been to increase skill level of staff in these schools.”
[E51]
“We are increasing having to build capacity within Sp Schools
to support MDVI learners. We are not appropriately funded to
provide significant amount of support within special schools
especially with regard to Service based TA going into special
schools.” [E52]
Other affected groups were children without statements (11% of VI
services) while two heads of service expressed concern about support
for pupils attending Academies:
“We have had to reduce support for the YP without
statements, with complex needs and whose sight is below
High Level Need thresholds as we have had to channel all our
direct support into those children who are blind or who have a
severe visual impairment.” [E19]
“Children without statements – advice to school only.” [E54]
“As funding has been taken out of our budget the Academies
are causing concern as we are not allowed to support CYP
without a statement unless the academy buys in our service.
This has resulted in delays in providing support and a
reduction in the level of support offered to CYP. Many of our
parents value the support but do not have the confidence to
challenge schools and push for appropriate intervention for
their CYP.” [E18]
“Children in one LA Academy are not currently being seen by
the service.” [E53]
3.5
Risk to future support for children and young people
As seen in responses to the previous question, a number of VI services
have already found it necessary to withdraw or reduce the level of
service provision to certain groups of children and young people.
However, as is evident from table 6, a far higher number consider that
anticipated budget cuts may force them to do so.
10
Table 6: Groups of blind and partially sighted children who risk a
reduction in support from VI services (n=57)
Category of
Yes, service
Unsure if
No, service is
children/YP
is at risk of
service is at
not at risk of
reducing or
risk of
reducing or
withdrawing
reducing or
withdrawing
support
withdrawing
support
%
support
%
%
Children in the early 9%
9%
79%
years
CYP without
9%
10%
79%
statements of SEN
CYP whose sight
24.5%
10.5%
65%
difficulty is below a
certain threshold
CYP with complex
14%
7%
79%
needs
Other groups of CYP 14%
9%
72%
While no services have so far reduced provision for children in the early
years, almost one in ten (9%) feel they would be at risk of doing so if
their own staffing levels are reduced further, while a further 9% were
uncertain. One head of service who had given a ‘no’ response regarding
a perceived risk to early years support, nevertheless observed that:
“…This is likely to change after the restructure of services,
especially the funding for pre-school children.” [Wales37]
Children and young people whose sight falls below a certain threshold
are again most at risk, with a quarter (24.5%) of services considering
changing their criteria for provision in the face of further cuts, while a
further one in ten (10.5%) were uncertain. Similarly, pupils without a
statement were seen to be at risk of having a reduction in support (9% of
services thought this possible while a further 10% were uncertain). The
following quotes give some idea of what heads of service are currently
considering may be necessary with respect to these groups of children
and young people:
“…difficult to answer. The reductions we make will be directly
related to the amount of cut we will have to make in the
budget. My personal intention is to make a horizontal rather
11
than vertical cut (cutting from the least ‘needy’ and
maintaining services to the most ‘needy’.” [E7]
“Due to increasing caseloads, we may have to consider
letter/advice only for children with mild VI.” [E8]
“Have been asked to look at which C/YP we would not need to
see and where advice documents only may be sufficient!”
[E10]
“But if the cuts affect us then we may have to review Service
Delivery and Eligibility Criteria Thresholds.” [E44]
“We are being told that there will be cuts and that we have to
concentrate on our core business – we feel that the support to
children or young people without statements may reduce or
become part of a ‘buy-back’ or ‘traded’ service – rather than
the ‘open access’ model we currently run.” [E34]
A few noted that cuts might have to be made to all groups of children
rather than to specific groups:
“Whilst the VI team is stable at present and we can cover all
the requirements of the CYP, other teams, within the Generic
Service we currently work for, are suffering through staff
leaving for other posts, early retirement and sickness. We
have been told that to balance the situation, managers may
move staff around to ensure core activities are covered. This
will mean that everybody gets a ‘little’ support rather than one
area being covered at optimum levels and another group of
individuals getting a limited service...” [E27]
“If staffing is further reduced support will be reduced across
the range of VI.” [E30]
“We will have to further reduce support for all these areas if
we continue to have the high proportion of severe visual
impairment referrals we have had over the summer, if the
present situation of being unable to recruit new members of
staff.” [E19]
It is emphasised that the findings in this section reflect what heads of
services feel may be necessary should cuts to their staffing go ahead.
12
Nevertheless, it is clear from the detailed responses that there is
considerable apprehension about their ability to maintain the current
level of provision to all groups of children in the future. In view of what
services have already experienced, and the messages they have been
receiving from the LAs it would seem that their concerns may be fully
justified.
3.6 Implications for children of actual or proposed changes to VI
service staffing or provision
Heads of services who responded to the questionnaire survey were
invited to comment upon the implications of changes that have already
happened, or that they envisage happening in the future. Their
responses were subsequently coded and the following broad themes
emerged:
1. Effect on provision for children and young people
2. Future models of provision and funding
3. Workload and staffing issues
4. Uncertainty
Clearly, all four themes are inter-related in that models of provision and
funding have implications for staff numbers and training, which in turn will
affect support for children and young people, while underpinning most of
the responses was a sense of uncertainty. Nevertheless, for clarity,
people’s comments have been organised under these broad groupings,
and a selection are presented in 3.6.1 to 3.6.4 below.
3.6.1 Effect on provision for children and young people
The following quotes reflect the concerns of heads of services about the
potential effect of staffing and funding cuts on pupils:
“The implications are that the children will not be visited as
often. Some children we used to see will no longer be seen.
Parents may demand more out-county placements at great
expense to the council.” [E6]
“There are no proposed changes but if there were we would
have to cut services to some groups of children. I am
concerned about children with milder VI who often end up
struggling and not achieving.” [E11]
13
“If we do have to cut by 40% over 3 years the only way the
cuts could be done is by cutting TA jobs and QTVIs. This
would mean that we would be forced to re-view the criteria for
support. Some pupils currently supported could lose their
specialist support.” [E17]
“Although we are not as yet facing a reduction in the level of
staffing I am concerned that constantly having to raise the bar
in order to access our service will impact on those CYP who
have a less severe VI and sit there quietly without causing a
fuss but end up struggling and do not achieve their full
potential.” [E18]
“I am constantly concerned that children we have previously
provided with direct support will not have the support they
need in order to access their curriculum and we will not be
matching provision to need.” [E19]
“A high degree of independence has been possible for the
visually impaired children in schools because of the modified
print resources we provide via our technical team. If this
element of our work is restricted through the freeze on
recruitment or through cuts then there will be a need for
higher levels of in-class support. This will not be desirable in
terms of outcomes for the children but it will also be a false
economy.” [E20]
“We also have concerns around the funding for equipment for
VI children. Historically this need has been met through
‘access’ funds and has not been built into pupil costings. If
the responsibility for the purchase of equipment transfers to
the schools, will they accept high-cost, low incidence pupils
… or will this inevitably lead to a decrease in ‘full inclusion’
and an increase in resource base or VI special school
placements?” [E34]
3.6.2 Future models of provision and funding
Echoing the previous theme, it is not surprising that when discussing
their concerns about the way VI services may be organised and funded
14
in the future following the CSR, respondents again commented on
possible implications for children.
Two issues that concerned several services were the impact of
Academies and a related issue of a move to ‘traded services’. Here are
some of the comments we received:
“Academies are a worry because our Pre-school provision is
funded from the DSG…” [E4]
“Four schools will become academies in the next 2 months.
We are waiting to see if they will agree to a service level
agreement which will include support from our team.” [E16]
“There is talk of moving to fully traded services. Its only
rumour and I don’t want to give the impression that this is a
proposed change – we are all waiting for the October
Spending Review and how the LA will respond. If we were to
become fully traded services then I am concerned that it may
impact on the quality and quantity of support to the children
because we currently act as advocates for the children and
their families and as a specialist service. This advocacy
carries weight because we are seen to speak with authority. In
a traded service we will only be able to deliver what schools
themselves identify that they need. Their perspective can
sometimes be contrary to our view and to the views of the
child and their parents.” [E20]
“At present as SNS is centrally funded, VI pupils receive
support based on the SERSEN criteria. The introduction of
academies may mean that individual academies may choose
not to buy in the same level of support. If the Service were to
become a bought in Service, our caseload and the level of
support we provide could decrease for similar reasons which
would have implications for staffing levels.” [E50]
“Service under review – very uncertain because of huge
budget cuts. Anticipate drastic changes to structure and
staffing by November. Possible decentralisation – e.g.
reduced VI service may be attached to a mainstream school.”
[E21]
15
“There is a distinct possibility of the VI and HI team being disaggregated – into ‘area based teams’ along with other
services. We have concerns about such a move – around
flexible deployment of staff, provision and equipment
according to emerging need and continued professional
development – also about coherence and consistency in
terms of policy/ response/demands on staff…We also have
concerns around the funding for equipment for VI children.
Historically this need has been met through ‘access’ funds
and has not been built into pupil costings. If the responsibility
for the purchase of equipment transfers to the schools, will
they accept high-cost, low incidence pupils … or will this
inevitably lead to an decrease in ‘full inclusion’ and an
increase in resource base or VI special school placements?”
[E34]
“Dependent on the changes to public sector funding and how
this impacts on education funding it is likely that we will have
to consider different ways of working eg Traded, raising
thresholds for input, etc. This may result in reduced staffing
levels and could well result in reduced levels of support for
C&YP, especially for those with a more “manageable” visual
impairment, or those whose cognitive ability masks their VI
difficulty, which is likely to result in preventing those C&YP
from reaching their full potential.” [E44]
3.6.3 Workload and staffing issues
Several respondents commented on the potential effects of staff cuts and
service re-organisation on staff workloads. Staff training was also seen to
be at risk by some.
“Sudden axe on spending in the summer has meant that we
have to cut back on expenditure on materials, training, CPD
etc. ‘Are meetings, conferences, publications, and journeys
etc. deemed to be necessary?’ – we are asked.” [E33]
“Our LA seems to still be holding onto need to keep ‘specialist
teams’ though may be asked to take on other generic duties
as well, i.e. chairing annual reviews, ensuring SEN paperwork
from schools completed correctly, etc.” [E10]
16
“Any mandatory training for QTVI will not now be available.”
[E12]
“This all looks very positive but there have had to be in year
efficiency savings and I am expecting that there will be further
changes in the next financial year. We are already planning
for this and expect to be able to continue our high standards
of service delivery for the children and their families by using
the eligibility criteria and tight programme management of
staff. It seemed important to give a context because it could
be assumed from the questionnaire that we are unaffected!”
[E15]
“All training we provide has now moved to a traded position
from previously no cost except cover and we anticipate that
schools are not likely to send staff to train on behalf of an
individual child – this is likely to mean that we have to
duplicate such work in each school to ensure we can deliver
the advice etc to make the inclusion work. This will increase
the time needed from our team on each child and will put a
strain on the team when we are already a team member
down.” [E20]
“Delivery may be from unqualified staff. Cut in levels of
support.” [E27]
“We are currently a shared service across [LA] Borough &
Central [LA]. Disaggregation is happening, but as yet we have
no clear plan from either Council. This means that staff may
leave or be made redundant; potentially leaving both councils
short of suitably qualified & experienced staff to deliver a
service to the VI/MDVI/MSI pupils.” [E45]
“Increasing numbers of children with severe VI coming into
LA – Slovakian and other[s]...pressure on support levels.”
[E56]
Not all respondents were concerned about staffing arrangements,
however, and some were satisfied with their current situation:
“No changes planned, we have actually increased the number
of QTVI working for the service.” [E5]
17
“I am happy to tell you there has been no change in the
service offered to children/pupils within E9. And as far as I am
aware there will be no changes even though it has been
looked at as my role is statutory. That said, I do 3 days a week
and replaced someone full time 3 years ago. My caseload is
full and requires tight management.” [E9]
“Proposals are being looked at in the LA to commission the
secondary school where [we] are based to deliver the service.
This model would mean the service in its entirety being moved
under the management of the secondary school with service
staff being on the role of the school. However a tight
commissioning document would be drawn up to ensure
budget for example couldn’t be used for any other purpose
but for the service. We are in the early stages of this process
…I’m very much in favour of the model as it is currently being
proposed but watch this space!!!” [E38]
3.6.4 Uncertainty
For many – if not most – heads of service who took part in the survey a
sense of uncertainty prevails and is reflected in the previous quotes.
These are just a few more comments from people to illustrate this:
“Nothing is certain at this time. The outcome of government
cuts is still uncertain but we have been asked to look at the
implications of a reduced service budget. Any of the answers
above could be completely wrong by the end of the year.”
[E49]
“All children’s services in [LA] are currently under review
therefore changes expected.” [E57]
3.7
Evidence and arguments that have been used to support the
case for retaining appropriate levels of staffing and provision
In a final question, respondents were asked to provide details of any
evidence, arguments and/or documents that they had used to support
their case for retaining appropriate levels of staffing and provision for
blind and partially sighted children and young people.
18
A wide range of responses were received, which is encouraging as it
appears that a coherent argument, backed up with clear evidence and
statistics, can be used effectively to maintain a high level of service
provision. The evidence and strategies used can be grouped into the
following broad themes (which were to a large extent, already implied in
the original question):
1. Cost effectiveness/value for money/quality of current provision
2. Risks associated with proposed changes/reduction of service
3. Statutory obligations/national policies and guidelines
4. External support
As was the case for the themes identified in section 3.6, the themes are
not mutually exclusive. However, for clarity, people’s comments have
been organised under these four broad groupings and respondents’
comments under each theme are presented in 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 below.
Underpinning all of the strategies detailed here however, is a strategic
use of statistics and various other forms of evidence. The following quote
from one head of service is presented here in full as it encapsulates all of
the four themes and exemplifies how a powerful case can be built by
using statistics and evidence from the service’s own records and external
documents:
 “We recently had to provide stats for the director’s management
team to examine alongside those of all other services in
Children’s Services as they had to find posts to cut. None were
deleted from our team.
 We broke down our statistics to show that whilst we didn’t have
the throughput of teams like Behaviour Support we were
providing intensive and sustained support that more than filled
the working hours of 2 FTE TOVI and 1 FTE specialist TA for VI.
 Our stats were able to show that we were enabling more VI
children to stay in their neighbourhood school instead of
travelling to out-borough special provision (where parents had
chosen this)…
 [Our stats were able to show] the number of children requiring a
Statement of SEN also fell as more were being well supported
without one.
 We had a great deal of evidence of how much schools valued our
service, based on an impact analysis survey, and we had much
from parents and children showing the same thing less formally.
 Our links with the parents of children who attend out-borough
special schools and centres and with the schools themselves
19
enabled us to monitor the effectiveness of these provisions to
ensure the best possible outcomes for the children who attend
them.
 Our development plans showed how we had examined how we
currently work (across VI, HI and PD) and had looked at ways of
providing more with less by doing things differently, particularly
by the use of technology, networking and supporting parents to
support their children’s education.
 We hoped that we could use the attainment data to show that we
were narrowing the gap between the CYP with VI and those
without SEN but this material couldn’t be compiled in time for the
tight deadlines that we worked to on that occasion – we’d be
better prepared in future, and we’ve also highlighted the need for
the LA statisticians to record info differently in future.” [E1]
3.7.1 Cost effectiveness/value for money/quality of current
provision
The quotes presented here show how heads of services have
demonstrated that the way their service is currently organised provides
value for money. Evidence they have provided includes staff use of time,
impact analysis, pupil attainment rates, pupil case studies, and quality of
current provision and where possible, relating this to need:
 “…we have had no specific proposal to reduce in these
areas. However engaged in various tables with LA to show
how staff use their time (Tribal surveys)...
 Use SESIP Matrix to identify levels of need and growth of
caseloads.
 Parent and school and Pupil evaluations show need / want
the service.” [E4]
“I have done a number of documents; VFM – value for money;
ZBB – zero based budget; and others!..” [E7]
“We have justified our service in terms of spend to save. We
are part of the inclusion service which includes in its remit
reducing out of borough placements, statements and tribunal
activity. Currently the VI team only has one child in an out of
borough school so our model is being developed by other
parts of the service.” [E17]
20
“Detailed information on support levels, levels of staffing and
comparisons with 18 months ago…” [E30]
“The Head of Sensory Service has written a document titled
‘The Sensory Service Review and Value for Money Report ‘
January 2010 which was written to support service staffing
levels and to inform…[LA].” [E36]
“By taking on the additional case load of children with visual
processing difficulties we are widening our service, reducing
the referrals going to the Learning Difficulties team and
therefore providing better value for money as a service.”
[Wales40]
We are in the process of completing documentation to put
forward ready for the restructuring of services. This will
include surveys we have carried out on impact measure…
Reports of 2 service questionnaires carried out in 2009 by our
Service.” [E41]
“I shamelessly promote ourselves as having excellent
provision for C&YP with PSI. I wrote a paper on how our work
with C&YP with PSI prevents expensive NMI (non-maintained
independent) placements; how mobility input reduces
transport costs etc etc for the Education Select Committee…
…invited County Councillors (CC) to come and see the work
we do…2 [Councillors]..met with some of our high-need young
people, including a young person in his local 6th Form using
Braille and walking to school with his long cane through the
middle of morning rush-hour! They left suitably impressed
and fed-back to the rest of the Committee. …” [E44]
“Over the last two years…head of service, and I have drawn
officers’ and head-teacher forum’s attention to the increased
number of blind/tactile learners at our schools and to the
increased number of under 3s who are blind/likely to be tactile
learners. We provided data, costings and risk analyses for
alternative ways of responding to this situation. This resulted
in our VI team being given a larger budget to enable it to grow
so that the needs of blind/tactile learners can be met without
cutting service to other VI children.” [E26]
21
“[LA] has a ‘Higher than National Average’ incidence of visual
impairment, and of complex medical conditions which include
VI.
Our year on year feedback from schools (through our KPI
questionnaires) consistently show very high levels of positive
responses from parents, schools and pupils.” [E34]
“If there is a drive to reduce non-statutory elements of the
service such as pre-school, ILS, family support will use
supporting programmes + achieved targets of pupils success
through the Early Years Profile, Certification evidence of
achievements through ICT, mobility, ILS…” [Wales35]
“Children coming in from other LAs who have not had VI
support at a higher support level are functioning comparably
lower/have not begun or been introduced to Braille plus prebraille/behaviour issues.” [E56]
3.7.2 Risks associated with change/reduction in service
Under this theme, heads of services have emphasised to their LAs the
risks associated with cutting services, most notably a likely increase in
out of borough placements:
“Demand for expensive out-county places.
Stress on remaining staff having to take on more caseload
and travel greater distances.
Reduction in VI children and young people we can see.” [E6]
“I also made a comparison with costs if children were
attending out of county placements. I am happy to help people
with similar cases…”[E11]
“As we do not have any resource bases/enhanced provision
for VI we have looked at VFM comparing the costs of CYP
attending out of city placements.” [E18]
“…I produced a position statement and evidence to go to our
senior managers. I also identified levels of funding required to
send the students with the most significant need to specialist
colleges, if we were not in post…” [E27]
“Documentation for a Service Review which will be held in the
next few months. In this I have listed the functions of the
22
service and then recorded the risk if the service isn’t
available.” [E41]
“Papers from the Team outlining the impact of disaggregation
and redundancies have already been circulated directly to the
council. We will need to do this again, as it seems obvious
from the council’s lack of understanding of our roles that they
have not been read.” [E45]
“Head of service has made case describing implications of
cuts on children and young people supported by front line
services such as ours.” [E48]
“I have looked at and highlighted the risks incurred in
reducing the service to schools and families i.e.
parents/school dissatisfaction, increase in tribunals, increase
in out of county placements, looking at the cost effectiveness
of the current provision versus more expensive alternatives.
At the moment money talks!” [E49]
“Parent/school questionnaires. List of students who may
require out of county placement if support not available.”
[E57]
3.7.3 Statutory obligations/national policies and guidelines
There were a number of examples given where heads of services had
reminded LAs of their statutory obligations to blind and partially sighted
children, and/or had invoked national polices and guidelines relating to
their educational provision. Examples of documents used included:









SEN Code of Practice
Every Child Matters outcomes
SERSEN criteria
Quality Standards in Education Support Services for Children and
Young People with Visual Impairment
Position statement on mandatory qualifications
Removing Barriers for Disabled Pupils
DDA (Equality Act 2010)
Lamb Report 2010
UN Charter on the Rights of the Disabled Child
23
“Statutory rights of VI pupils stated in their statements of
educational need.” [E6]
“Allocating blocks of specialist staff time to the provision
levels prescribed according to the national eligibility criteria is
useful.” [E15]
“We are prepared to make use of statement requirements and
would hope to make use of Code of Practice (early
intervention) Every Child Matters 5 outcomes - Inclusion
policy (name of LA) Parental choice.” [E23]
“Implications – Failure to educate, Equality Act 2010.” [E30]
“Code of Practice and statutory legislation…Use of the
SERSEN Criteria for Involvement to identify level of
intervention and equate this with staffing levels.” [E32]
“For the past three years, we have used the SESIP model for
allocating support, which is still being adhered to...” [Wales37]
“We use the eligibility criteria and I’ve used the position
statement on MQ from Julie Jennings. Also VI Quality
Standards and the regional charter mark awarded to the
service on the basis of existing provision.” [E38]
“Everything we do we relate to positive outcomes for C&YP
and can evidence this using the Quality Standards in
Education Support Services for C&YP with VI; Quality
Standards for SEN, Support Outreach Services, Early Support
National New-Born Hearing Screening Protocols; Accessible
Schools, Removing Barriers; SEN Code of Practice; you name
it we use it!!!. It appears to have had some impact as
evidenced by the fact that I have been allowed to recruit and
appoint 3 staff during what is meant to be a 2 yr recruitment
freeze. It is also helpful that in working with SEN Management,
we have always insisted that monitoring and advice from
Qualified Advisory Teachers for VI/HI/MSI and input from
paediatric mobility officers, are included under Part 3,
educational provision…” [E44]
24
“DDA; Code of Practice; Ofsted report on SEN provision;
Quality Standards for VI and SEN outreach; Lamb report.”
[E52]
“UN Charter on the Rights of the Disabled Child – signed up to
by our government but conveniently forgotten!” [E53]
3.7.4 External support
This final ‘theme’ was in fact referred to by only one head of service, who
emphasised the importance of building up external support through
partnership working, involvement with national groups and lobbying local
counsellors:
“I continually flag up and promote the excellence of our work
with the “powers to be” and with County Councillors. I also
encourage schools and especially parents to do the same…
My aim is to get them on our side should anyone decide it’s a
good idea to “cut” PSS. Where ever possible we work in
partnership with others – families, schools, FE/HE sectors,
social care, Health, 3rd Sector, Early Years Services,
Connexions etc etc especially with regard to Disability
Awareness Training and/or DDA Training. Again it’s a case of
profile raising as armour against cuts… I encourage
involvement with any national/local groups such as NatSIP,
NNatPIP, SAVI, BATOD, VIEW, HOSS and ensure that feedback
always goes to senior managers – again raising the profile.”
[E44]
4.
Conclusion
As noted in the introduction to this report, this questionnaire survey of VI
services was carried out in response to concerns raised by several
heads of services about threats to educational provision for blind and
partially sighted children and young people as a result of local authority
cuts to staffing and funding. These cuts were being made in the context
of an impending national government Comprehensive Spending Review
(CSR) that was predicted to result in major reductions in public sector
spending. The aim of the survey was to ascertain whether the threat to
VI service provision was widespread or whether it was restricted to a
small number of LAs.
25
Fifty-seven completed questionnaires were received, representing more
than a third of VI services in England (covering all 9 local government
regions) and Wales.
From the very detailed responses received it was apparent that there is
considerable apprehension among VI services about the possibility of a
reduction in budgets and staffing, with a consequent reduction in
educational support for blind and partially sighted pupils. Some groups of
children appear to be more at risk than others of having their support
reduced.
We found that even before the publication of the CSR, several LAs had
started to impose cuts on VI services. Thirty-six per cent of the VI
services that responded have lost posts or had them frozen, or have
experienced a reduction in staff hours since the beginning of the year. A
total of 15 QTVI posts across England and Wales have already been lost
or frozen, with a further six posts considered to be at risk in the future.
In addition to teaching posts that have been lost or are at risk, it is
apparent that other specialist staff posts have been, or are likely to be
affected. These include mobility officers, TAs and resource technicians.
It is also evident from questionnaire responses that while VI services
have done their best to maintain a high standard of support for children,
the cuts are already having an effect, with certain groups of children at a
higher risk than others of having their support reduced or even removed
completely. Some services are being forced to review the threshold they
set for support. If this trend continues, with scarce resources being
restricted to pupils who are blind or have a severe visual impairment,
there is a risk that children with a 'less severe' visual impairment may
struggle and fail to make progress in line with their peers. Pupils with
visual impairment are more likely than pupils with no SEN to experience
social disadvantage, and around 50% have an additional SEN
(Chanfreau and Cebulla, 2009) - even a 'mild' visual impairment is likely
to have a disproportionate effect on their performance at school.
It would appear that in some areas, VI service provision for pupils without
a statement may also be reduced, with LAs prioritising pupils whose
needs they have a statutory obligation to meet.
There is evidence too, of changes to the way that VI services are funded
and organised, with a move in some areas towards 'traded services'.
This is a model that may work well for some pupil groups but it is
26
debatable whether, due to economies of scale, it will prove as cost
effective for 'low incidence' SEN groups such as blind and partially
sighted children. There is uncertainty too, about what effect the
introduction of new academies will have. We also do not know what
effect these changes will have on the future mandatory qualification (MQ)
training for teachers of pupils with visual impairment. If under a 'traded
service' arrangement SEN funding is moved from central LA budgets to
individual schools, who will then have responsibility for ensuring that
QTVI staffing levels are maintained and MQ training is properly funded?
We have seen from responses to this survey that in a number of LAs
QTVI posts have already been lost and that training is one of the areas
under future threat as the cuts are implemented. This is in the context of
a QTVI workforce with an age profile skewed towards older personnel. In
2007 a survey of VI services in England found that over half (53 per cent)
of QTVIs were in the 50 to 65 age group (Morris and Smith, 2008). A
possible effect of these combined factors could be a shortage of QTVIs
within the next few years.
It is unclear why some VI services are being affected more than others.
However, it is clear that where services have managed to avoid drastic
cuts to their provision, it has been necessary for them to put forward a
strong case to their LA with supporting evidence. Heads of service have
needed to prove that they provide value for money, that there is a need
for specialist provision and that their current service has positive
outcomes for children and is valued by schools and parents. The
argument that a reduction in specialist provision within the LA could
result in an increase in costly out of borough placements for pupils with
high levels of need (such as blind pupils) has also proved to be an
effective argument in some cases.
In conclusion, this is an uncertain time for VI services. Decisions that are
made in the next few months about their future funding and organisation
are likely to have serious and far reaching consequences for the
education and life chances of blind and partially sighted children and
young people.
References
Chanfreau J and Cebulla A (2009) Educational attainment of blind
and partially sighted pupils. National Centre for Social Research for
RNIB.
27
Morris M and Smith P (2008) Educational provision for blind and
partially sighted children and young people in England: 2007.
National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) for RNIB.
28