Developing an effective school‐based service for children attending mainstream schools

Abstract

ABSTRACT In May 1993 a new school‐based speech and language therapy service for children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs was introduced to schools in Harrow. Input was provided according to each child's needs as indicated by their speech and language therapy assessment and was offered on alternate half‐terms due to limitations defined by funding from the local Purchasing Authority. The introduction and subsequent success of the new service depended not only on adequate speech and language therapy resources but also on collaborative working with both school staff and parents. As the service was in its infancy and developing rapidly, regular review was essential. During the year 1993–1994 the Speech and Language Therapy Department carried out audits of the service focusing on: (1) The frequency of input each child received; (2) The impact of the new service on schools' staff understanding of communication impairment and their ability to modify activities to meet the needs of individual children; (3) Parents' perceptions of the new service and its perceived impact on the communication skills of their children. The study involved a comparison of departmental records (for example, the number of contracts offered, with recommended frequency of input), a questionnaire and interviews with school staff, a questionnaire to parents. The service was found to be meeting the recommended levels of input. (This was within resource constraints, i.e. every other half‐term.) Both parents and teachers felt that the new service had improved their understanding of and ability to deal with the children's communication difficulties (school staff 70%; parents 84%). Seventy‐eight per cent of parents felt that their child's communication skills had improved. However, the results raised questions about other aspects of the service: 62% of parents were unhappy with the frequency of input, despite the recommended levels being met every other half‐term; increased liaison time was required; parents requested more ideas for home use; and schools staff stressed the need for further training on communication difficulties. As a result, several changes have been introduced by the Speech and Language Therapy Department: (1) Amendments to the format of written reports, leading to greater ease of access and application within educational review meetings; (2) Improved departmental standards concerning provision of written information to parents and schools; (3) The development of departmental standards relating to contact with parents; (4) Further development of training packages provided by the Speech and Language Therapy Department service. The results and implications of the audit have been discussed with the Local Education Authority (LEA), the Purchasing Authorities, and in‐borough parent support groups. Areas identified for further attention include: (1) Agreeing priority grouping for speech and language therapy intervention; (2) The implications of Harrow LEA's integration policy and the 1994 Code of Practice for speech and language therapy provision; (3) Training of schools staff and its effect on the provision of speech and language therapy. The Purchasers and the LEA have formed a working party in order to address these issues in consultation with the Speech and Language Therapy Department. The audit has proved invaluable in providing necessary information to those involved.