A school-commissioned model of speech and language therapy

Abstract

Many speech and language therapy (SLT) services have limited capacity for providing school-based input. Some offer commissioned SLT input, to enhance the service provided by the UK National Health Service (NHS), giving schools the option to increase the amount and scope of SLT intervention. This two-tiered model of service provision is relatively new and has not been researched. This study investigated the experiences of schools who had commissioned input from the local SLT service, in terms of (1) describing how this was utilized and (2) exploring perceptions of its value. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCos) from 11 schools and were thematically analysed using Framework Analysis. SENCos reported many positive aspects of the commissioned model, including better communication with Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and improved outcomes for children. SENCos felt that the numbers of children with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) had reduced following commissioned input. Very few disadvantages of the model were identified. SLTs delivered a range of activities, including training staff and providing direct input for children. SENCos would recommend the service, and perceived the cost to be moderate. These data suggest that SENCos place a high value on SLT in schools, and welcome the opportunity to purchase additional input.

Keywords

commissioned consultative funding intervention school

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

McLeod

(2004) Evidence-based management of phonological impairment in children. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 20: 261–85.

Baxter

Brookes

Bianchi

Rashid

Hay

(2009) Speech and language therapists and teachers working together: Exploring the issues. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 25: 215–34.

Boyle

McCartney

O’Hare

Forbes

(2009) Direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of language therapy for children with primary language impairment: Principal outcomes from a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 44: 826–46.

Carpenter

Papps

Bragg

et al . (2013) Evaluation of pupil premium. Research report. London: Department for Education.

Clegg

Hollis

Mawhood

Rutter

(2005) Developmental language disorders: A follow-up in later adult life: Cognitive, language and psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46: 128–49.

Department for Education (2014) Pupil premium: Funding for schools and alternative provision. London: Department for Education. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/premium/b00231348/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-ap-settings/online-reporting (accessed May 2018).

Fuchs

(2006) Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly 41: 93–99.

Gasgoine

(2008) Change for children with language and communication needs: Creating sustainable integrated services. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 24: 133–54.

Law

Lindsay

Peacey

et al . (2002) Consultation as a model for providing speech and language therapy in schools: A panacea or one step too far? Child Language Teaching and Therapy 18: 145–64.

10.

Leyden

Stackhouse

Szczerbinski

(2011) Implementing a whole school approach to support speech, language and communication: Perceptions of key staff. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 27: 203–22.

11.

Lindsay

Soloff

Law

et al . (2002) Speech and language therapy services to education in England and Wales. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 37: 273–88.

12.

Lindsay

Dockrell

Desforges

et al . (2010) Meeting the needs of children and young people with speech, language and communication difficulties. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 45: 448–458.

13.

McCartney

Boyle

Ellis

Bannatyne

Turnbull

(2011) Indirect language therapy for children with persistent language impairment in mainstream primary schools: Outcomes from a cohort intervention. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 46: 74–82.

14.

McKean

Law

Laing

et al . (2016) A qualitative case study in the social capital of co-professional collaborative co- practice for children with speech, language and communication needs. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 52: 514–27.

15.

Mecrow

Beckwith

Klee

(2010) An exploratory trial of the effectiveness of an enhanced consultative approach to delivering speech and language intervention in schools. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 45: 354–67.

16.

Pring

Flood

Dodd

Joffe

(2012) The working practices and clinical experiences of paediatric speech and language therapists: A national UK survey. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 47: 696–708.

17.

QSR International (2012) NVivo version 10 Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) (2012): Outstanding achievement for pupils learning English as an additional language: Greet Primary School. London: OFSTED. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/learning-english-as-an-additional-language-in-primary-school (accessed May 2018).

18.

Ritchie

Spencer

(1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman

Burgess

(eds) Analysing qualitative data (pp. 173–194). London: Routledge.

19.

Roulstone

Wren

Bakopoulou

Lindsay

(2012) Interventions for children with speech, language and communication needs: An exploration of current practice. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 28: 325–41.

20.

Spencer

Clegg

Stackhouse

Rush

(2017) Contribution of spoken language and socio-economic background to adolescents’ educational achievement at age 16 years. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 52: 184–96.