Support for school-age children with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) usually takes place within the school setting. Successful outcomes for children with SLCN rely on effective collaborative working between speech and language therapists (SLTs), school staff and families. We need to understand the current evidence regarding the joint working practices, relationships and collaboration experiences of SLT and teaching staff within mainstream primary schools, in order to identify whether sufficient research exists for a systematic review within this field, and to inform practice. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify what research currently exists regarding collaboration, roles and relationships of SLTs and teaching staff within mainstream UK primary schools, and clarify the nature, participants and concepts described within this literature. A scoping review framework was used, consisting of identification of the review objectives, identification of relevant studies, study selection and iterative searches, data charting and reporting of the results. Information regarding research question, participants, data collection and analysis and terms used for key concepts was extracted. This scoping review identified 14 papers, however, collaboration was the primary focus of only 5 of these. Clarity and perceptions of roles were key themes within six of the papers. Whilst facilitators and barriers to collaboration are discussed in all 14 papers, only 4 studies aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators. Teaching assistant (TA) views are underrepresented within the research. Drawing conclusions from the body of research is challenging due to the varied ways in which the key concept ‘collaboration’ is used. Currently, there is insufficient literature to carry out a systematic review. This scoping review highlights the need for research that considers collaboration within the complex social network of school staff (including TAs) and SLTs, in order to ensure that future guidance is rooted in research.
BandSLindsayGLawJ, et al. (2002) Are Health and Education talking to each other? Perceptions of parents of children with speech and language needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education17(3): 211–227.
2.
BaxendaleJLocktonEAdamsC, et al. (2013) Parent and teacher perceptions of participation and outcomes in an intensive communication intervention for children with pragmatic language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders48(1): 41–53.
3.
BaxterSBrookesCBianchiK, et al. (2009) Speech and language therapists and teachers working together: exploring the issues. Child Language Teaching and Therapy25(2): 215–234.
4.
BercowJ (2008) The Bercow report : a review of services for children and young people (0-19) with speech, language, and communication needs. Nottingham: DCSF.
5.
BlatchfordPWebsterRRussellA (2012) Challenging the role and deployment of teaching assistants in mainstream schools: the impact on schools: final report on the effective deployment of teaching assistants (EDTA) project. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
6.
BoyleJMMcCartneyEO’HareA, et al. (2009) Direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of language therapy for children with primary language impairment principal outcomes from a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders44(6): i-158. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820802371848.
7.
DaviesPShanksBDaviesK (2004) Improving narrative skills in young children with delayed language development. Educational Review56(3): 271–286.
8.
Department for Children, School and Families (2007) The children’s plan building brighter futures. Norwich: DfCSF.
9.
Department for Education (1996) The education act. London: DfE.
10.
Department for Education (2011) Teachers’ standards; guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies.London: DfE.
11.
Department for Education (2014) The children and families act.London: DfE.
12.
Department for Education (2021) School workforce in England.London: DfE.
13.
Department for Education (2022) Special educational needs in England academic year 2021/22.London: DfE.
14.
Department for Education and Department of Health (2015) Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities.
15.
Department for Education and Skills (2003) Every child matters.Norwich: HMSO.
16.
DockrellJELindsayGLetchfordB, et al. (2006) Educational provision for children with specific speech and language difficulties: perspectives of speech and language therapy service managers. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders41(4): 423–440.
17.
EbbelsSHMcCartneyESlonimsV, et al. (2019) Evidence-based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders54(1): 3-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12387.
18.
ForbesJMccartneyEMckeanC, et al. (2019) Co/productive practitioner relations for children with SLCN: an affect inflected agentic frame Journal title: Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education Co/productive practitioner relations for children with SLCN: an affect inflected agentic frame.
19.
ForbesJWatsonC (2012) The transformation of children’s services, 11th ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
20.
GreenstockLWrightJ (2011) Collaborative implementation: working together when using graphic symbols. Child Language Teaching and Therapy27(3): 331–343.
I CAN (2008) Speech, language and communication needs and primary school-aged children. Available at: www.thecommunicationtrust.org.uk.
23.
I CAN and RCSLT (2018) Bercow: ten years on an independent review of provision for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs in England. Available at: www.bercow10yearson.com.
24.
LawJLindsayGPeaceyN, 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 Therapy18(2): 145–163.
25.
LindsayGDockrellJDesforgesM, et al. (2010) Meeting the needs of children and young people with speech, language and communication difficulties. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders45(4): 448–460.
26.
LindsayGDockrellJMackieC, et al. (2002) Educational provision for children with specific speech and language difficulties in England and Wales. Warwick: Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR), University of Warwick.
27.
LynchYMurrayJMoulamL, et al. (2019) Decision-making in communication aid recommendations in the UK: cultural and contextual influencers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication35(3): 180–192.
28.
McCartneyEBoyleJEllisS, et al. (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 Disorders46(1): 74–82.
29.
McCartneyEEllisSBoyleJ, et al. (2010) Developing a language support model for mainstream primary school teachers. Child Language Teaching and Therapy26(3): 359–374.
30.
McKeanCLawJLaingK, et al. (2017) 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 & Communication Disorders52(4): 514–527.
31.
MecrowCBeckwithJKleeT (2010) An exploratory trial of the effectiveness of an enhanced consultative approach to delivering speech and language intervention in schools. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders45(3): 354–367.
32.
MrozM (2006) Providing training in speech and language for education professionals: challenges, support and the view from the ground. Child Language Teaching and Therapy22(2): 155–176.
33.
MukherjeeSLightfootJSloperP (2002) Communicating about pupils in mainstream school with special health needs: the NHS perspective. Child: Care, Health and Development28(1): 21–27.
34.
PenuelWRielMKrauseA, et al. (2009) Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: a social network approach. Teachers College Record111(1): 124–163.
35.
PetersMDMarnieCTriccoAC, et al. (2020) Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis18(10): 2119–2126.
36.
PollockDDaviesELPetersMD, et al. (2021) Undertaking a scoping review: a practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics. Journal of Advanced Nursing77(4): 2102–2113.
37.
PringTFloodEDoddB, et al. (2012) The working practices and clinical experiences of paediatric speech and language therapists: A national UK survey. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders47(6): 696-708. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00177.x.
38.
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (2018) Placing children and young people at the heart of delivering quality speech and language therapy: Guidance on principles, activities and outcomes. London: RCSLT.
39.
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (2021) Childrens services collaborative working statement. London: RCSLT.
40.
ScottCHofmeyerA (2007) Networks and social capital: A relational approach to primary healthcare reform. Health Research Policy and Systems5: 1-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-5-9.
41.
ShkediA (1998) Teachers’ attitudes towards research: a challenge for qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education11(4): 559–577.
42.
TriccoAC, Lillie E, Zarin Wet al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine169(7): 467–473.
43.
WrightJAGrahamJ (1997) Where and when do speech and langauge therapists work with teachers?British Journal of Special Education24(4): 171–174.
