Knowledge Levels of Sencos in Newcastle Primary Schools special educational needs (SENCo) have varying levels of knowledge regarding speech therapy, language and communication needs, and understanding of the role of the speech and language therapist. Additionally, there is a lack of consistency in communication and liaison between the SLT department and primary schools. This report is aimed at Speech Language Pathologists (SLTs) in the Pediatric Community Team to become aware of the levels of understanding that SENCos have specifically related to Speech, Language and Communication (SLCN) needs in order to develop better communication and shared understanding . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The aim is to analyze the information received from the SENCos and identify potential challenges and adaptations that could be made to improve service delivery in the future. Objective: To explore the current level of knowledge and understanding of SENCo regarding speech, language and communication needs. The Bercow Report (2008) highlighted five key themes for improving collaboration between the health and education sectors to create more effective service delivery and therefore improved services for children with SLCN. In this context, the theme “Joint working is crucial” develops the importance of closer collaboration between SLTs and schools to offer a holistic approach. Additionally, the “Every Child Counts” policy (ref.). However, the term “SLCN” has been used differently in various reports and policies, so it needs to be taken into account. For example, in the Bercow Report, SLCN is used in a broad sense, encompassing anyone in that category – SLTs commonly use this definition. However, the Department for Education uses SLCN to describe those whose main difficulties are speech, language and communication, without considering those who suffer from SLCN from other causes. This is used throughout the SEN Code of Practice, suggesting that SENCos would be exposed to this definition. Therefore, these differences must be recognized to reduce any communication problems. However, the most recent SEND Code of Practice, published in 2015, attempted to clarify the meaning and categorized SLCN as a “communication and interaction” need (Department for Education, 2015). Collaborative models of service delivery are increasingly being used to help support children with speech, language and communication (SLCN) needs. The RCSLT has also identified that transdisciplinary working between schools, parents and speech and language therapists (SLPs) is an integral part of service delivery in SLT provision. This provision should encourage consideration of the functional impact of a child's SLCN on their ability to participate and engage in daily activities (ICAN, 2008). This holistic view can increase the child's self-esteem, access to the school curriculum and overall improvement in communication skills, if working together is successful (Baxter, Brookes, Bianchi, Rashid & Hay, 2009). Other benefits of working together for the professionals involved include (Glover, McCormack & Smith-Tamaray, 2015): Consistency in service delivery Transfer of skills and knowledge between professionals An approach thatinvolves curriculum and therapy Although there have been suggestions of moving towards a more collaborative model, this is becoming In recent years, the importance of these measures has increased due to increasing budget cuts to provision of services to SEN and the introduction of extended schools (Bercow Report, 2008). It is the combination of the skills and knowledge of teachers, the clinical and theoretical knowledge of speech therapists, and the insight and support of parents that should lead to the most effective intervention for children with SLCN. However, lack of knowledge and understanding of the speech, language and communication needs of SENCos can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of referrals and liaison with the SLT service. A 2017 Communication Trust report found that 67% of SENCos in a survey said they had received a lack of training on identifying and supporting children with SLCN, with only 24% saying they were confident in their abilities. As the SENCo has primary responsibility for referring children at risk or those who develop SLCN to specialist services, this may be a causal reason behind the under-identification of this client group. Additionally, it has been reported that teachers and SENCos identify speech and language difficulties more readily than any other difficulties, making them the main group of clients referred to speech therapy (McConnellogue, 2011 ). However, it is especially important for staff members to know the other children the speech therapists are working with so they can refer them for the appropriate reasons. Additionally, this would mean that they should be more aware of ways to identify other difficulties such as comprehension and pragmatics, which may present as inappropriate behavior, to ensure that they receive adequate support. Methodology: This pre-audit study was carried out for the pediatric community SLT service at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals. A questionnaire was created to achieve this objective. The questionnaire was developed based on previous literature and clinical experience. In the first draft, the sections of the questionnaire were as follows: Knowledge and understanding of SLCNTrainingExpectationsCurrent satisfaction with liaisonImproved communicationsHowever, after discussions with the team as a whole, concerns were expressed regarding certain sections. These concerns arose from the idea that the survey would raise expectations and that SENCos would expect changes that are not realistic possibilities, for example training sessions. Unfortunately, a miscommunication within the team led to multiple versions of the questionnaire being produced due to a lack of clarity on the particular objectives and expected results of this survey. Further adaptations were then made, including the removal of sections on training opportunities and practical matters, and rewording. of questions to ensure it was clear that the information gleaned from the survey is intended to encourage more effective collaboration. A pilot sample was conducted using purposive sampling to choose SENCos with a good relationship with the service to enable fast response times and increased reliability and response rates (Palinkas, Horwitz, Green, Wisdom, Duan & Hoagwood, 2015). Three schools were chosen and invited to respond with any adaptations to the survey regarding the length, clarity and relevance of the questions. It has been suggested that certain terms beedited to make the content of the questions clearer. The questionnaire was then adapted following these suggestions. Online SurveyMonkey was used as a quick and easy method of data collection, achieving a large sample size and reducing costs and time required (Fife-Schaw, 2012). In addition, the processing of online questionnaires is much faster than that of traditional questionnaires. publication and/or distribution and anonymity can be preserved (Streiner, Norman & Cairney, 2015). To increase response rates, the researcher contacted the SENCos before conducting the research to obtain consent and make them aware that the questionnaire should be anticipated. The questionnaire consisted of a combination of open and closed questions using a mixture of Likert scales and multiple choice questions. Open-ended questions allow the respondent to elaborate on their responses, give more narrative responses, and add additional comments. Closed questions were used specifically to reduce the number of ambiguous responses and provide a quick response to the respondent (Fife-Schaw, 2012). Results: Sixty SENCos were initially contacted to complete the questionnaire. 10 SENCo agreed to participate, however, only 7 completed the questionnaire, giving a total response rate of 11.6%. Due to late data collection, data were not available for analysis until the end of the internship. Therefore, only one section of the questionnaire regarding SENCo's knowledge of SLCN was analyzed, as it was not possible to examine all sections in detail. . The first question was based on their confidence in understanding the term SLCN (Figure 1). All respondents gave a confidence rating above 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, suggesting overall confidence in their abilities. However, it might have been useful to also ask how long the respondent had been a SENCo, to determine if there is a correlation between years of employment and trust. It would be useful to highlight the necessary training that might be suitable. SENCos were also asked to clarify why they would refer a child for therapy. This can help determine whether SENCos are referring for the appropriate reasons. The qualitative data was analyzed using inductive content analysis, where overarching themes from the data were identified (Denscombe, 2010). Figure 2 below shows the percentage of themes identified in ascending order. Figure 2: Thematic analysis of reference patterns. Themes Percentage of SENCo mentioning this aspect (n=7) Examples Social communication 14 “Social communication disorders” Stuttering 29 “lack of fluency and stuttering” Concerns 29 “concerns of teachers and parents” Receptive language 57 “difficulties understanding or processing language” “receptive language difficulties” Expressive language 57 “progress with expressive language skills impacting learning” “children who do not speak” Unclear speech 57 “unclear speech” “difficult to interpret speech » 2/7 (29%) of respondents noted that this concern from teachers and parents would prompt guidance. However, this does not provide enough information to obtain reliable results from these respondents. It would be helpful to ask more questions through interviews or emails to delve deeper into why concerns arose. 5/7 (57%) of respondents identified receptive and expressive language difficulties and unclear speech as the main reasons for referral. This is an expected result because these 3 themes arethe most common SLCNs in primary schools. However, as a result, the majority of respondents should have identified this reason. Referring to Figure 3, 100% of SENCos had identified that SLTs worked with children with spoken language difficulties. Therefore, one would have expected all SENCos to have highlighted this as a baseline need. Figure 3 illustrates the answers to the question. 6 “An SLT can work with the following elements…”. All respondents selected “children with spoken language difficulties” and “children with pronunciation difficulties” as the client groups that speech-language pathologists can work with. However, only 29% identified that speech therapists could work with children with hearing difficulties. The answer “Children with literacy difficulties” was used as a “dummy” answer to prevent respondents from randomly choosing all answers without thinking about the answer. However, one respondent identified this as a group of clients that SLT works with. As most respondents did not identify all of the correct answers to this question, this highlights the need for SENCos to better understand the role of SLTs. Figure 4 below represents the number of respondents who received training in particular areas. . 6/7 SENCo answered this question. 4/6 (67%) received training on typical speech, language and communication development, identification of individuals with SLCN, and methods for supporting children with SLCN. However, only 2/6 received training recognizing the importance of good SLCN and the impact this can have on the overall program. A more detailed analysis identified disparities between responses within the questionnaires. For some respondents a confidence rating of 10 was given, however, responses to questions regarding the referral lacked detail and questions regarding the role of the speech and language therapist showed a lack of understanding and knowledge in this area. However, if the respondent feels they are confident in this, this should be of greater concern. Additionally, some respondents report a trust rating of 10 and provide appropriate reasons for their referral, but are then unable to name the client groups that SLTs work with, including those that SENCos would frequently encounter. This highlights the need for a more collaborative service delivery model and the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) training, as suggested by Ofsted and…. It is suggested that the remaining data be analyzed using qualitative techniques such as thematic analysis, and discussed in team meetings to identify specific ways to improve communication. Conclusions and implications for clinical practice The results suggest that SENCos have varying levels of knowledge regarding SLCN in terms of the training they have received, as hypothesized. The data showed that some SENCos are potentially unaware of alternative methods of referral and the roles of the SLT. However, the results do not provide enough detail to formulate this hypothesis. Additionally, there is variability in the levels of training they have received… With 7.6% of primary school children presenting with a developmental language disorder, this diagnosis is the most common childhood pathology, ahead of autism and dyslexia (Communication Trust). SENCos would be expected to identify language difficulties as a major concern and reason for referral. However, from the above results, this..

Essay / Knowledge Levels of Sencos in Newcastle Primary Schools special educational needs (SENCo) have varying levels of knowledge regarding speech therapy, language and communication needs, and understanding of the role of the speech and language therapist. Additionally, there is a lack of consistency in communication and liaison between the SLT department and primary schools. This report is aimed at Speech Language Pathologists (SLTs) in the Pediatric Community Team to become aware of the levels of understanding that SENCos have specifically related to Speech, Language and Communication (SLCN) needs in order to develop better communication and shared understanding . Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The aim is to analyze the information received from the SENCos and identify potential challenges and adaptations that could be made to improve service delivery in the future. Objective: To explore the current level of knowledge and understanding of SENCo regarding speech, language and communication needs. The Bercow Report (2008) highlighted five key themes for improving collaboration between the health and education sectors to create more effective service delivery and therefore improved services for children with SLCN. In this context, the theme “Joint working is crucial” develops the importance of closer collaboration between SLTs and schools to offer a holistic approach. Additionally, the “Every Child Counts” policy (ref.). However, the term “SLCN” has been used differently in various reports and policies, so it needs to be taken into account. For example, in the Bercow Report, SLCN is used in a broad sense, encompassing anyone in that category – SLTs commonly use this definition. However, the Department for Education uses SLCN to describe those whose main difficulties are speech, language and communication, without considering those who suffer from SLCN from other causes. This is used throughout the SEN Code of Practice, suggesting that SENCos would be exposed to this definition. Therefore, these differences must be recognized to reduce any communication problems. However, the most recent SEND Code of Practice, published in 2015, attempted to clarify the meaning and categorized SLCN as a “communication and interaction” need (Department for Education, 2015). Collaborative models of service delivery are increasingly being used to help support children with speech, language and communication (SLCN) needs. The RCSLT has also identified that transdisciplinary working between schools, parents and speech and language therapists (SLPs) is an integral part of service delivery in SLT provision. This provision should encourage consideration of the functional impact of a child's SLCN on their ability to participate and engage in daily activities (ICAN, 2008). This holistic view can increase the child's self-esteem, access to the school curriculum and overall improvement in communication skills, if working together is successful (Baxter, Brookes, Bianchi, Rashid & Hay, 2009). Other benefits of working together for the professionals involved include (Glover, McCormack & Smith-Tamaray, 2015): Consistency in service delivery Transfer of skills and knowledge between professionals An approach thatinvolves curriculum and therapy Although there have been suggestions of moving towards a more collaborative model, this is becoming In recent years, the importance of these measures has increased due to increasing budget cuts to provision of services to SEN and the introduction of extended schools (Bercow Report, 2008). It is the combination of the skills and knowledge of teachers, the clinical and theoretical knowledge of speech therapists, and the insight and support of parents that should lead to the most effective intervention for children with SLCN. However, lack of knowledge and understanding of the speech, language and communication needs of SENCos can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of referrals and liaison with the SLT service. A 2017 Communication Trust report found that 67% of SENCos in a survey said they had received a lack of training on identifying and supporting children with SLCN, with only 24% saying they were confident in their abilities. As the SENCo has primary responsibility for referring children at risk or those who develop SLCN to specialist services, this may be a causal reason behind the under-identification of this client group. Additionally, it has been reported that teachers and SENCos identify speech and language difficulties more readily than any other difficulties, making them the main group of clients referred to speech therapy (McConnellogue, 2011 ). However, it is especially important for staff members to know the other children the speech therapists are working with so they can refer them for the appropriate reasons. Additionally, this would mean that they should be more aware of ways to identify other difficulties such as comprehension and pragmatics, which may present as inappropriate behavior, to ensure that they receive adequate support. Methodology: This pre-audit study was carried out for the pediatric community SLT service at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals. A questionnaire was created to achieve this objective. The questionnaire was developed based on previous literature and clinical experience. In the first draft, the sections of the questionnaire were as follows: Knowledge and understanding of SLCNTrainingExpectationsCurrent satisfaction with liaisonImproved communicationsHowever, after discussions with the team as a whole, concerns were expressed regarding certain sections. These concerns arose from the idea that the survey would raise expectations and that SENCos would expect changes that are not realistic possibilities, for example training sessions. Unfortunately, a miscommunication within the team led to multiple versions of the questionnaire being produced due to a lack of clarity on the particular objectives and expected results of this survey. Further adaptations were then made, including the removal of sections on training opportunities and practical matters, and rewording. of questions to ensure it was clear that the information gleaned from the survey is intended to encourage more effective collaboration. A pilot sample was conducted using purposive sampling to choose SENCos with a good relationship with the service to enable fast response times and increased reliability and response rates (Palinkas, Horwitz, Green, Wisdom, Duan & Hoagwood, 2015). Three schools were chosen and invited to respond with any adaptations to the survey regarding the length, clarity and relevance of the questions. It has been suggested that certain terms beedited to make the content of the questions clearer. The questionnaire was then adapted following these suggestions. Online SurveyMonkey was used as a quick and easy method of data collection, achieving a large sample size and reducing costs and time required (Fife-Schaw, 2012). In addition, the processing of online questionnaires is much faster than that of traditional questionnaires. publication and/or distribution and anonymity can be preserved (Streiner, Norman & Cairney, 2015). To increase response rates, the researcher contacted the SENCos before conducting the research to obtain consent and make them aware that the questionnaire should be anticipated. The questionnaire consisted of a combination of open and closed questions using a mixture of Likert scales and multiple choice questions. Open-ended questions allow the respondent to elaborate on their responses, give more narrative responses, and add additional comments. Closed questions were used specifically to reduce the number of ambiguous responses and provide a quick response to the respondent (Fife-Schaw, 2012). Results: Sixty SENCos were initially contacted to complete the questionnaire. 10 SENCo agreed to participate, however, only 7 completed the questionnaire, giving a total response rate of 11.6%. Due to late data collection, data were not available for analysis until the end of the internship. Therefore, only one section of the questionnaire regarding SENCo's knowledge of SLCN was analyzed, as it was not possible to examine all sections in detail. . The first question was based on their confidence in understanding the term SLCN (Figure 1). All respondents gave a confidence rating above 6 on a scale of 1 to 10, suggesting overall confidence in their abilities. However, it might have been useful to also ask how long the respondent had been a SENCo, to determine if there is a correlation between years of employment and trust. It would be useful to highlight the necessary training that might be suitable. SENCos were also asked to clarify why they would refer a child for therapy. This can help determine whether SENCos are referring for the appropriate reasons. The qualitative data was analyzed using inductive content analysis, where overarching themes from the data were identified (Denscombe, 2010). Figure 2 below shows the percentage of themes identified in ascending order. Figure 2: Thematic analysis of reference patterns. Themes Percentage of SENCo mentioning this aspect (n=7) Examples Social communication 14 “Social communication disorders” Stuttering 29 “lack of fluency and stuttering” Concerns 29 “concerns of teachers and parents” Receptive language 57 “difficulties understanding or processing language” “receptive language difficulties” Expressive language 57 “progress with expressive language skills impacting learning” “children who do not speak” Unclear speech 57 “unclear speech” “difficult to interpret speech » 2/7 (29%) of respondents noted that this concern from teachers and parents would prompt guidance. However, this does not provide enough information to obtain reliable results from these respondents. It would be helpful to ask more questions through interviews or emails to delve deeper into why concerns arose. 5/7 (57%) of respondents identified receptive and expressive language difficulties and unclear speech as the main reasons for referral. This is an expected result because these 3 themes arethe most common SLCNs in primary schools. However, as a result, the majority of respondents should have identified this reason. Referring to Figure 3, 100% of SENCos had identified that SLTs worked with children with spoken language difficulties. Therefore, one would have expected all SENCos to have highlighted this as a baseline need. Figure 3 illustrates the answers to the question. 6 “An SLT can work with the following elements…”. All respondents selected “children with spoken language difficulties” and “children with pronunciation difficulties” as the client groups that speech-language pathologists can work with. However, only 29% identified that speech therapists could work with children with hearing difficulties. The answer “Children with literacy difficulties” was used as a “dummy” answer to prevent respondents from randomly choosing all answers without thinking about the answer. However, one respondent identified this as a group of clients that SLT works with. As most respondents did not identify all of the correct answers to this question, this highlights the need for SENCos to better understand the role of SLTs. Figure 4 below represents the number of respondents who received training in particular areas. . 6/7 SENCo answered this question. 4/6 (67%) received training on typical speech, language and communication development, identification of individuals with SLCN, and methods for supporting children with SLCN. However, only 2/6 received training recognizing the importance of good SLCN and the impact this can have on the overall program. A more detailed analysis identified disparities between responses within the questionnaires. For some respondents a confidence rating of 10 was given, however, responses to questions regarding the referral lacked detail and questions regarding the role of the speech and language therapist showed a lack of understanding and knowledge in this area. However, if the respondent feels they are confident in this, this should be of greater concern. Additionally, some respondents report a trust rating of 10 and provide appropriate reasons for their referral, but are then unable to name the client groups that SLTs work with, including those that SENCos would frequently encounter. This highlights the need for a more collaborative service delivery model and the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) training, as suggested by Ofsted and…. It is suggested that the remaining data be analyzed using qualitative techniques such as thematic analysis, and discussed in team meetings to identify specific ways to improve communication. Conclusions and implications for clinical practice The results suggest that SENCos have varying levels of knowledge regarding SLCN in terms of the training they have received, as hypothesized. The data showed that some SENCos are potentially unaware of alternative methods of referral and the roles of the SLT. However, the results do not provide enough detail to formulate this hypothesis. Additionally, there is variability in the levels of training they have received… With 7.6% of primary school children presenting with a developmental language disorder, this diagnosis is the most common childhood pathology, ahead of autism and dyslexia (Communication Trust). SENCos would be expected to identify language difficulties as a major concern and reason for referral. However, from the above results, this..

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch