BATOD recognises that some ToDs use the term 'hearing-impaired' synonymously with deaf.

Principles:

1. Pupils with SEN are entitled to:
   1. equal opportunity regardless of degree or type of disability or learning difficulty;
   2. a full and relevant education in an appropriate educational environment;
   3. develop a range of skills, knowledge and experiences required for individual fulfilment and independence;
   4. educational services which respond to their needs through the provision of access to differing forms of support and a range of approaches to education;
   5. a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum;
   6. appropriate forms of assessment and accreditation;
   7. the optimum provision and management of specialist equipment;
   8. receive educational support from qualified, specialist teachers (and other professionals) who have the skills to recognise, assess and meet their academic, personal and social needs.
   
   NB The above points are taken from the document 'Towards a National Policy in the Education of Deaf Children and Young People'. It appeared in the BATOD Magazine May 1995.

2. It should be recognised that SEN Specialist Teachers:
   1. should be divided into 2 groups:
      1. the generic SEN teacher, e.g. a SENCO, a teacher in a learning support service;
      2. the teacher with specialist qualifications and expertise who is working in a specific area of SEN, such as deafness.
   2. work with pupils with mild or with moderate forms of SEN, as well those whose needs are severe and complex.
   
   NB: We therefore, refer in this document to specialist SEN teachers with a generic role as specialist teachers (G); for specialists with a specific role, such as teaching deaf children, as specialist teachers (ToD).

3. SEN Specialist Teachers (G & ToD) should:
   1. be cognisant of the core standards required of them;
   2. have access to a range of opportunities and courses which will enable them to develop their knowledge, skills and understanding of pupils with SEN;
   3. have access to appropriate funding arrangements which will allow them to undertake relevant training as quickly and efficiently as possible;
   4. be statutorily required to undertake accredited, relevant, specialist training within 2 years of commencing a specialist role;
   5. undertake an accredited course of study which should have the status of a post-graduate diploma, or higher level of qualification, requiring completion within a 1 year full-time or equivalent part-time programme;
   6. have access to funds which will enable them to undertake further professional development beyond statutory qualifications.
      For example, undertake additional courses of study in:
      1. a specific area of SEN, perhaps in modular form;
      2. a particular phase of education;
      3. the individual's own specialist area, thereby up-dating knowledge and skills;
      4. a particular curricular area and its specific implications for pupils with SEN;
      5. specific managerial and advisory knowledge and skills, relating to a specific area of SEN provision.
   7. be required to undertake some form of re-accreditation within a set period, or maintain a CPD log which would need periodic review, in order to maintain qualified status.
4. The Specialist Courses should:
   1. be designed and delivered by a team of appropriately qualified and experienced staff, within an institution of Higher Education, thereby creating specialist centres of excellence;
   2. be accredited by a collaborative body, comprised of representatives from relevant professional associations and Government agencies;
   3. have advisory/consultative committees which consist of course providers, additional representatives from the University/faculty, the student body, professional associations, and voluntary organisations.

RESPONSE

Consultation Booklet, Pg. 3. - Specific Applications:

1. 1. The examples are useful in suggesting how individuals might analyse their own specific training requirements.
   2. The examples are not helpful in suggesting that individuals should dabble in additional, specific aspects of SEN, without identifying where the source of training should come from. (NB 'some aspects of the deaf and SpLD specialist standards'.) Whilst it is essential that SEN teachers (G) in generic contexts have some knowledge of a range special needs, it must be recognised that they are not 'experts'. There is the danger that having received some input they will be considered, or consider themselves, as 'qualified'. It must be recognised that the provision of INSET on the nature of specific SEN is one of the main roles of the true specialist, e.g. a Teacher of the Deaf/Visually Impaired (ToD/VI).
   3. The examples seem to indicate that SEN teachers (G) will be required to become 'Jack of all trades and masters of none'. The core standards cannot provide the same necessary level of expertise as the specialist standards, i.e. as provided by the current mandatory courses. Training which applies to the core standards should enable teachers to identify when a specialist teacher (E) should be involved, i.e. "Please assess this child."
   4. It needs to be recognised that specialist teachers (G & E) also work with pre-school children and post-16 students, as well as pupils in the compulsory sector.
2. 1. Other case studies might be helpful, e.g. an example of a Teacher of the Deaf.
   2. It would be helpful to know what qualifications the individual exemplars already have. What role would the teacher in the PRU have in regard to the deaf pupils?
   3. It would be helpful to know what routes to training might be available, who would provide the funding and who would be the providers.

Pg. 4.- Key Purpose of SEN specialists.

1. SEN specialists (E), i.e. not generic SEN teachers, also have a key role in working with pupils who have mild and moderate forms of SEN, including those with fluctuating conditions. These teachers can often fulfil a preventative role. The setting up of placements and the monitoring of provision, outcomes and difficulties is necessary to prevent any problems becoming severe and complex.
2. Early intervention, which should be at the time of diagnosis, (i.e. a few months old) needs to be undertaken by experienced and qualified specialists (E).
3. It does not seem feasible that a generic SEN specialist will have sufficient knowledge to make judgements on all areas of SEN. The understanding which they should have, is to know when to ask for specific help from those SEN staff working in specific SEN fields, e.g. ToD/VI.
4. The document refers to 'improved achievement' on a number of occasions. Many pupils already attain remarkable levels through the endeavours of SEN specialists (G & E). Thus there appears to be an implied and unnecessary criticism. It would be better to state that SEN specialists (G & E) will seek to ensure that pupils with SEN reach as high a level of academic attainment as possible, as well as ensuring that the pupils' social needs are also met.
5. SEN specialists (G & E) should provide access to a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum. Thus they also need access to training in curricular areas.

Pg. 5 - Key Outcomes of Specialised SEN Provision

1. Ref.: a. This seems to refer particularly to pupils who have learning difficulties. Emphasis should also be placed on educational attainment and independence.
2. Ref.: b. There is a reference here, which suggests that inclusion can be defined as a placement, i.e. a mainstream school. It is much more than this. If one of the ultimate goals is for pupils to become as independent as possible, and hence take their place within their local community, then the schooling they receive should, as far as possible, enable this to happen. If the educational provision is appropriate, then pupils should feel included, academically and socially, and thereby have the opportunity to reach that goal. Mainstream education, per se, is not the ultimate goal and in fact may well hinder pupils' progress towards adult independence, by being unable to offer a truly inclusive environment. Therefore specialists (G & E) should aim towards pupils becoming contributing young adults and not necessarily formulating strategies to increase provision and placements in mainstream schools.
3. Ref.: b. SEN specialists (mainly E) should also be required to work with pupils who have fluctuating conditions. Specialists (E) also need to have sufficient knowledge and experience in order that they can make informed contributions to pupils, parents and other agencies. This means specific expertise rather than a generic overview. If the specialist (E) feels valued and is able to make a positive contribution then s/he will also wish to be engaged in continuing professional development, providing that the opportunities are present.
4. 4. There are a number of references to a 'broad and balanced curriculum' without the inclusion of 'relevant'.

Pg. 6. - Core Standards

1. 1. The core standards are laid out in a comprehensive way but contain much repetition and are over-prescriptive. It is suggested that the lists could be pruned relatively easily.
   2. There is an implication that all SEN specialists (G & E) should be able to carry out a range of assessments. It is believed that this is impractical bearing in mind the range of specialisms involved in the SEN field. It is not sensible that the 'genericist' undertakes, for example, audiological or Braille assessments.
   3. The role of the true SEN specialist (e.g. ToD), is not given enough recognition in this section, under all headings, except for 'a'. There seems to be a lack of understanding as to the extent and variations of the different needs of children with specific learning, social or access difficulties. It is the specialist services (E) who will, in general, be providing support and advice to the 'generic' SEN teacher. This link should be more clearly and strongly stated.
      For example it seems impractical that the 'generic' teacher would have sufficient time to undertake an in-depth study of the physical, linguistic and psychological structures of communication (see f. i.). Attention should be focussed on the role of the teacher who has a specialism in speech and language disorders or is a ToD.
   4. There are some competencies that are not directly relevant to pupils with hearing impairment, see e. vi, vii and ix. There should be a re-focussing here. For example, for deaf pupils, ToDs should be making use of video, to record and then transcribe speech, interactional skills and syntactical development.
   5. Much thought needs to go into how people can be trained to be fully conversant with all that seems to be required. Will additional training money be available? How long would such a course take?
   6. An omission from either heading 'b' or 'c' is to do with the role and skills of the specialist support teacher (G & E). The visiting teacher will need to have good communication skills, be sensitive yet insistent and consequently be able to liaise effectively with mainstream staff, including LSAs. Pre-planning, involving mainstream teacher, LSA and the specialist teacher (G & E) is essential to effective learning. The document seems to underestimate the skills, techniques and strategies required by support staff. There seems to be an assumption that teachers in special schools will automatically be able to transfer their knowledge and skills to mainstream settings. It is our experience that this is not so. Training is necessary.
2. 1. The six headings do provide a comprehensive list of competencies. However, it would seem that there is some repetition from section to section. In particular, it is felt that section 'f' could be combined with section 'c'. This would then have the heading 'Curriculum Access, Effective Teaching and Effective Support'.
   2. It is suggested that mention in this new section is made to the skills, techniques and strategies that are necessary for support teachers and LSAs to become effective in support roles.

Pg. 7.

1. 1. It is presumed that the specialist standards are expected to reflect the absolute necessity for additional specialist training.
   2. It is thought that the setting out of specialist standards by reference to these particular characteristics of SEN is helpful. Each area of SEN requires specific knowledge and teaching expertise, which can only be fully gleaned from an in-depth course of study and practical experience.
   3. Although it is stated that these additional specialist standards are but a summary of the key characteristics of knowledge, understanding and skills required, it must be recognised that for a teacher to effectively fulfil his/her specialist role then a far more comprehensive list of specialist standards should be available. It is only from this more detailed list that suitable courses should be developed. For ToDs reference to the 'Content of Courses' booklet, compiled by the UK Course Providers would be helpful.
   4. We consider that a suitable course which would enable a teacher to effectively undertake a specific specialist role (e.g. ToD) must be detailed, must contain a practical teaching component, should be undertaken within 2 years of a teacher being employed in this specialist role and have a mandatory status. Therefore the entitlement of the SEN pupil to be taught by someone with a recognised basic degree of knowledge would be fulfilled.
   5. From our collective experience of working with or employing newly qualified ToDs, we consider that a 1 year full-time or 2 year part-time course is an absolute minimum for such teachers to have gained sufficient knowledge, understanding and skills to be effective practitioners.
   6. It is also believed that such a course should be completed within the 1 year full-time or 2 year part-time period.
   7. Whilst it seems appropriate that all teachers have the opportunity to undertake training in specialist areas there needs to be a close control on what recognition that training has. For example, if someone undertakes a 30 hour module in 'Deaf Awareness' then although this may be very useful as background information, it should not be considered as a sufficient qualification for that person to be regarded as a qualified ToD.
   8. We have a great concern that the necessary depth of knowledge required within the specialist areas could be watered down by an over prescriptive generic element. It is not considered a feasible option for most teachers to undertake the study of a generic or basic SEN course and then be expected to participate in a specialist course. The expectation would be that most of the core standards would be incorporated into the specialist course, i.e. the specialist course would not be a further period of study unless the individual chose to follow this route.
   9. It should be pointed out that under the heading 'Deafness', pt iii, a cochlear implant is not an amplification system. It processes sound, not amplifies it.

Pg. 9.

2. 1. We believe that the summary characteristics do not cover the essential specialist knowledge and skills for meeting severe and complex forms of SEN. In many ways they do not even provide the detail that is required for meeting mild and moderate SEN, if they are designed to form the basis of specialist course which leads to an appropriate qualification.
   2. Some examples of omissions in the 'Deafness' section include: lack of mention of the historical aspects of deaf education and implications for current practice; the maintenance of amplification systems (i.e. to know how to check, fault find and manage the systems); the effects of hearing loss on cognitive development; knowledge and use of phonetics and phonetic transcription; classroom strategies to support pupils with all levels of loss; use of acoustic analysers; technical expertise to assess and suggest modifications to acoustic environments; delivery of training packages.
   3. Our concern is that course providers and employers will be content to accept abbreviated courses of study, preferring the cheap option rather than quality.

Pg. 10.

3. 1. The standards do appear to reflect some of the unique characteristics of each group.

Pg. 11.

4. 1. As stated above, a lot more detail would be of enormous benefit.

Pg. 12

5. 1. The balance as depicted in the document appears satisfactory but one needs to inspect the greater detail, which is the true reality. Therefore there needs to be depth as well as balance.
   2. We are encouraged that within each specialism there is requirement that teachers must be able to teach effectively.

Pg. 13.

1. The list comprises only of attributes - there are no skills.
2. It is suggested that the following skills should be added:
   Specialist teachers (G & E) should be able to:
   1. teach effectively;
   2. use the appropriate communication mode for individual pupils;
   3. communicate and liaise effectively with parents and other agencies;
   4. create effective learning programmes through task analysis and modification of materials across the 'curriculum', particularly in regard to communication, literacy and numeracy;
   5. adapt the working environment to take account of specific needs;
   6. implement appropriate assessment techniques for specific pupils;
   7. make effective use of specialist equipment and materials including ICT;
   8. evaluate their own contribution to pupils' progress;
   9. provide effective support and training to others, e.g. professionals and parents;
   10. recognise when to ask for help from an appropriately qualified specialist, e.g. a ToD;
   11. show a commitment to on-going professional development.

Pg. 14.

1. 1. The role-specific standards seem to be appropriate and give some recognition to the differences and complexities faced by specialist SEN teachers (G & E). However, they are only helpful if they are made specific for teachers working in specialist areas, e.g. deafness.
2. 1. It is not thought that additional roles need to be specified.

Pg. 15.

3. 1. In the advisory section some emphasis should be given to the pre-planning and preparation needed for setting up a particular placement for a SEN pupil.
   2. In the curricular section the specialist teacher (E) will need to advise on the specialist examination and assessment arrangements which may exist and to modify questions or materials, as appropriate.
   3. In the managerial section the specialist teacher/manager (G & E) may well also have a responsibility for a budget, will have to draw up a development plan, conduct interviews and appraisals, and organise and deliver INSET.
4. 1. The standards of professional capabilities outlines for these 3 roles, if the above additions are incorporated, generally seem to reflect the level and range of professional demands which have to be met.

Pg. 16.

5. 1. It may be quite helpful to arrange the standards relating to roles and responsibilities under the headings of knowledge and understanding, and skills. However, for it to become effective, the range of different 'managers' within the specialist fields would have to be determined, e.g. unit teacher (with a LSA), Head of Unit/Resource Base, Head of Service (one or more disciplines). Each of these would have slightly different roles and responsibilities.
   Additional Notes
   1. The headings under specialist standards contain 'deafness' and 'visual impairment'. Should this be changed?

Options for the delivery of training for SEN specialists - Response Booklet

Pg. 4.

1. We consider that the principles set out in the booklet are relevant but should be considerably extended.
2. In Pt. iv. acknowledgement should be made of the vital role which specialist teachers (G & E) can have with pupils with mild and moderate forms of SEN. The teachers' skills and knowledge can be used in many cases to find preventative methods of overcoming difficulties and therefore a moderate problem will not escalate into a complex one. This role can, in nearly all cases, only be fulfilled by a teacher with comprehensive knowledge of the specific SEN area, e.g. a ToD.
3. Pt. v. could also refer to the need for research into what has proved 'good practice'. This could be carried out by the specialist course staff. (See centres of excellence, below.)
4. We advocate that if there is a true intent to increase the numbers of appropriately trained specialist SEN staff (G & E), as well as improve the quality of training, then it should be stated that funding will be available for initial specialist training as well as on-going professional development. It should be recognised that high quality training in specialist areas (e.g. deafness) already exists.
5. We advocate most strongly that specialist SEN teachers (E) be statutorily required to undertake specialist training within 1 year of commencing a specialist role.
6. This specialist course should be an accredited course of study, which should have the status of, at least, a post-graduate diploma, requiring completion within a 1 year full-time or 2 year part-time programme.
7. We advocate that following initial specialist qualification (E), a specialist teacher (E) should have to undertake some form of re-accreditation within a set period, or maintain a CPD log, which would need annual review in order, to maintain the teacher's qualified status.
8. Re: Pt vi. We most strongly state that the setting up of a common specialist SEN qualification (G) would be totally inadequate to meet the wide variety of special needs presented by a very vulnerable group of children.

Pg. 5.

1. 1. We believe that Pt i should be deleted. Courses need to be set up which have a clear outline. It is not up to the trainers to do a needs assessment. Teachers will apply for courses if they are fully aware of the likely content. If specific training is required by local authorities, schools or services, then it is they who can request a particular programme.
2. 1. We believe that for the provision of low incidence special needs (LISEN) courses, training departments need to be set up which become centres of excellence. The courses should be designed and delivered by appropriately qualified and experienced staff, who are preferably part of a team. We do not consider that courses organised and delivered by only one member of staff would provide suitably comprehensive and informed programmes of study.
   2. (See Pt. x.) We suggest most strongly that specialist courses be validated and approved by TTA, DfEE, representatives from the relevant SEN teaching profession, and representatives from voluntary associations, e.g. NDCS, AFASIC, RNIB;
   3. We suggest that specialist courses have advisory/consultative committees, which should consist of course providers, and representatives from the University/faculty, student body, professional associations, and voluntary organisations.
   4. Training will need to ensure that specialist SEN teachers (G & E) have swift access to funds which will enable them to undertake further professional development, e.g.:
      1. short modules which would enable the development of a basic understanding of a specific area of SEN;
      2. courses specific to a particular phase of education;
      3. general up-dating of knowledge, skills and understanding within the individual's own specialist area;
      4. gaining increased knowledge and skills in a particular curricular area;
      5. undertaking courses of training in which aim to develop specific managerial and advisory skills.
      
      If teachers have already been appointed to posts in specialist SEN fields, they need to have rapid access to training. Pupils need qualified personnel all the time. Delay in receiving training means that pupils suffer.
   5. Pts ii and iii seem to ignore the theoretical underpinning which is required in specialist training. Whilst we very much support the practical elements within courses and specifically endorse the requirement for practical teaching to be a fundamental requirement of specialist courses, there needs to be a balance between theory and practice.
   6. Pt iv. We agree that within specialist training (G & E) there should be the opportunity to study how the application of specific knowledge, understanding and skills can be utilised in a range of SEN settings. However, we do not necessarily think it feasible for specialist training to also cover a wide range of SEN. Whilst it is important that specialist courses (E) include some aspects of generic SEN training the most important issue is to provide teachers with the specific knowledge and skills required within the specialist area.
   7. Pt v. We very much agree with this point, see Pts 2 & 3 above. Courses also need to have a self-evaluative and reflective role.
   8. Pt viii. We do not agree with the idea of supporting SMT, governing bodies etc, per se. It would be better to state that specialist teachers would be in a better position to influence and contribute to the development of quality provision for pupils with SEN - including those with mild and moderate difficulties.

Section 5: Options for the delivery of training.

1. We do not think that there needs to be strong central control in regard to training for the core standards. We suggest Option ii.
2. Training for the specialist standards does need to be overseen by a central body (see pts 9 and 10 above). We re-iterate that specialist courses be validated and approved by TTA, DfEE, representatives from the relevant SEN teaching profession, and representatives from voluntary associations, e.g. NDCS, AFASIC, RNIB;
   We also suggest that specialist courses have advisory/consultative committees, which should consist of course providers, and representatives from the University/faculty, student body, professional associations, and voluntary organisations. We therefore suggest Option vi but for specialist standards only.
3. We do not think that there needs to be strong central control in regard to training for the standards relating to roles and responsibilities. We suggest Option ii.
4. The current mandatory courses (hearing, visual impairment) for teachers are assessed using a range of different assessment tools, e.g. assignments, practical teaching, seminar presentations, dissertations and interview. We believe these forms should be maintained and extended to all specialist courses. The assessments to be used by different course providers should be included in the course content document, which should be submitted to TTA and other parties (see above) for accreditation.
5. ( See also above) We believe that for the provision of low incidence special needs (LISEN) courses, (involving specialist standards) training departments need to be set up which become centres of excellence. The courses should be designed and delivered by appropriately qualified and experienced staff, who are preferably part of a team. We do not consider that courses organised and delivered by only one member of staff would provide suitably comprehensive and informed programmes of study. Consequently for specialist standards there should be a limited number of providers which would make each course numerically viable from one year to another. It would also mean that more than one lecturer would be employed over a period of time, providing experience, continuity and personal research.

If consideration were to be given to some form of re-accreditation or professional log, then training courses for core and specialist standards, roles and responsibilities, etc, would need to be approved and given a specific credit rating. University Departments/Course Providers should be able to provide this valuation. It would seem appropriate in this case for standards (in addition to specialist standards) to be set nationally for courses such as those for developing skills in other settings, roles and responsibilities, etc.

Section 6: Approaches to training and development. (Pg. 8)

1. We strongly advocate the need for continuing professional development (CPD). Specialist courses have many aspects which are open to more intensive study, e.g. audiology, language development and assessment, counselling, communication issues, etc. Specialist courses need to be available which can develop knowledge and skills beyond an initial level. Appropriate accreditation and awards at Masters level and beyond ought to be available.
   We suggest that in specialist areas these ought to be provided by the approved course providers (see above).
2. In order to provide opportunities for both initial specialist training and extended forms of training, funds need to be made available. We suggest the following:
   1. For initial specialist training, teachers need to have access to courses as quickly as possible. They also need to have access to funds. Preferably these funds should allow teachers to undertake their training in one year - i.e. a full-time secondment. Funds should be available to both the maintained and non-maintained/independent sectors.
      Careful consideration needs to be given to how forms of training can be made available to, and encourage, younger members of the teaching profession to undertake specialist qualifications, e.g. end-on training, bursaries, 4 year courses leading to a teaching and specialist qualification.
   2. For CPD, funds should be available to specialist staff (G & E) in schools, units/resource bases and specialist services. This funding should allow for flexible use by the employing organisation, following individual and the organisation's own needs assessment.
      (NB. Funding for CPD for specialist staff is currently not available as of right. For example, specialist services do not receive training money automatically. Any that is available is likely to be at the discretion of the LEA.)
   3. There has been an emphasis in ITT on classroom practice and support. If more is to be made of practical placements for teachers undertaking specialist (G & E) training then great care must be undertaken to ensure that current practitioners are not unduly burdened by performing their teaching role and a training role.