What have parents got against language units?
In recent months, the Afasic helpline has heard from a number of parents who have been offered a place in a language unit for their child, or had a language unit suggested as a suitable placement, but would rather their child went to or stayed in mainstream.
It’s not so long ago that Afasic members, local groups and other parents were working hard to get language units set up across the country, and by and large, they provide a good model of support for children with severe speech and language impairments, offering the specialist support they need in a mainstream context.
It is possible, though not easy, for mainstream schools to provide an equivalent package of support and some do an excellent job, but many still do not. So why would parents prefer a mainstream school over purpose-designed provision? What have they got against language units?
News Category: Helpline Blog
It could be that parents are being led to believe that an equivalent specialist service can be provided to their local school via outreach workers, who are based at the Language Unit provision. Also, some Units are now only offering fixed term places (eg 6 terms maximum) which may make parents wary about the effects of moving their child from school to school.
Also quite often these children are exhausted at the end of the school day through having to focus on and process what’s being said,and extra support sessions, let alone having to try to speak. I know our son is…placing him in our nearest Language Unit would add a further hour and a half onto his day.
It is a small price to pay that your child would be tired at the end of the day. My child attended a unit for 3 years to which they travelled 3 hours a day (there and back) to.
Without the help of the unit my child would now not be able to cope in a main stream school. The unit has given my child a life. I cannot praise them enough and would not like to think what the future would hold for these young people without them. We need more..
I deal with parents regularly who have children who have been offered places within our Language Unit. I fully understand and appreciate the incredibly difficult decision parents have to make. Often their main concerns are their child changing schools, being placed in a mixed age group class (particularly if their child is young), the time limit on placements (2 yrs for us) and having to manage a ‘stigma’ of their child having to go into a ‘unit’ (awful terminology for a parent…) They also worry about the taxis and transport. To ease parent’s concerns, we invite our new parents to a coffee morning with parents who have been with us for a while – the ‘old’ parents are always so supportive of our ‘new’ parents. We also invite ‘past parents’ who have children who have returned to mainstream to show that there is “Life after a Language Unit”!
I think Language Units are our LEAs best kept secret!
When our son was aged 4 he only had single words so we decided not to send him to our local mainstream primary school, because we felt he would not cope, but wait until he was 5 and a place at a Language Unit became available.
When he was 11, he still needed the support of a Language Unit, and we are lucky that our LEA has a secondary Language Unit to which our son transferred.
In the Language Unit(s) our son was taught and supported by teachers, TAs LSAs, SLTs etc who had experience of pupils with speech and language difficulties. Over 11 years he made steady progress and at the end of Y11 achieved 12 GCSEs (or equivalent) at grade C and above including Maths and English. He now attends a mainstream 6th form and hopes to go to uni next year!
Of course travelling was an issue, but he would not have received the support and therapy he needed in our local mainstream school, and he coped well with the travelling – it just became part of everyday life.
Lack of local friends is another issue, but he has made friends at the Language Units and in mainstream out-of-school clubs. If he had not gone to the Language Unit I don’t think he would have developed the language skills to make friends out of school.
We do not know what would have happened if he had attended our local mainstream school but I feared that he would be mocked and bullied for his lack of language, lose all self-esteem and consequently fail academically and socially.
I would advise any parent who has had a Language Unit suggested to them to give it very serious consideration and think what may happen if they do not take the place. Also any parent who feels that a Language Unit is the best place for their child to fight for it!
Are parents declining language units or language resourced schools? The provision offered for our daughter was a language resourced school, a mainstream school with a speech therapist office in it. They are taken out for speech therapy but that is it. They are in a mainstream class room ie 30 kids. To me it seems like a fudge and a way of providing speech therapy more cheaply and making the child travel rather than the therapist. The child has the disadvantages of both, large class size and having to travel and be out of community and for parents it is more difficult to communicate with the school, especially if have other children so can’t do drop off. It also seemed to be a way of the LA getting out of assessing a child properly, SLCN = “language resourced school” even though child needs are different. The LA can then get out of specifying and quantifying the support needed, the specialist school will do it, but even there there is only so much speech therapy time and they like to spend it taking the children out for therapy rather than offering the classroom support that is needed. Our daughter is essentially non verbal uses as electronic communication aid and visual symbols and the so called specialist language resourced school did not have experience of either of these, our children speak!!! The teachers have one child with SLCN each year and didn’t seem to have any specialist knowledge and were less adaptable to trying alternative communication systems. They have one trained TA to do the daily language programmes which is less helpful if you child needs more TA support.
It is good to hear some positive experiences but we need to make sure we are comparing the same things and recognise that not every child’s needs are the same.
It’s good to see people posting comments in response to this item on the Helpline blog. Do keep them coming as it’s interesting to know what other Afasic members and supporters think.I don’t routinely reply to every posting but there are a couple of things in this one I wanted to pick up on.
It certainly is not the case that the LA can ‘get out of specifying and quantifying the support needed’ if a child attends a resourced school. Apart from anything else, if the speech and language therapist were to go on maternity leave, for example, there is a risk the children would not get the therapy they need if it is not spelt out in their statements.
I entirely agree that children with speech and language difficulties need teaching that is tailored to their needs.If parents are dissatisfied with the range of provision available in the local area, do remember there are a number of ways you can work for improvements. Our book ‘The Parent’s Voice:Advocating for your Child’ gives a lot more guidance on how to do this.
This is a really necessary & important Helpline blog item,which,as a specialist teacher within a Language Centre,& an ardent AFASIC and specialist provision (within a continuum of SLCN provision)supporter,I am very pleased & reassured to visit for the first time today.
I would like to add my (long!)experience that, even when parents are in the fortunate position of having been offered a desired & fought for placement at a Lang Centre provision of their choice, part 4 of the Statement can be recorded as the named mainstream host school “with support from the (named) Language Centre specialist provision”- at least this is so for Kent. Our Parent Support Group, Governing Body & individual parents, have requested this provision description be reversed, as “support from the Lang Centre” hardly serves to ensure the highly specialist and modified curriculum delivered by integrated SLT & specialist educational staff, whatever the level of Inclusion practice excellence throughout the school, and is surely leaving pupils wide open to a wide range of provision models,perhaps with possible future government and funding changes in the future, rather than affording the protection of the very particular one provision parents have requested. So far a blank has been drawn here, but we shall return to the fray!
I entirely agree with the points you make. This is an issue parents frequently encounter – and not just in Kent. The problem is that SEN legislation currently only refers to the naming of schools in part 4 and does not acknowledge the specific role played by specialised units and other resources. This is something we have tried to bring to Government’s attention a number of times, but, so far, with little success. As you say, we will just have to keep pushing.
my son attends a language twice a wk 3 day in mainsteam school it was very hard for me watching my son go in a taxi to the language unit he has been there now for 4 months and his speech is coming along nicely i cant praise them anufffor what they have done with him he gets more 1 on 1 with his teacher than in did in mainsteam school people that dont want they kids to go to a language unit are very selfish
My child currently attends a speech and launguage unit at a school, he is 5 years old. He did 1 term at his local school then got transferred across once a space was available. Both my husband and myself were very unsure of our decision to send him to the unit, but thought we should give it a go as he wasn’t getting any specific help at our local school. So far it is working out great, he is improving in all aspects of his learning, not just his speech, as they tailor the learning to the individual needs as they are a specialised team, so they are able to do this. At the local school this wasn’t thier main concern in helping our child with his additional speach and language needs as they simply did not have the knowledge or the resources to do so. We are just so grateful for the help our son is getting now and we can finally see his confidence to communicate improving every day
.
What positive responses!
I think an important point is being made about statements (although this is all changing soon). When we get a draft statement through, we go through it with a fine toothcomb and ask parents to come to that meeting. Often, the authority place the emphasis for SALT provision into part 6, and only vaguely refer to speech therapy provision in part 3. I have contacted IPSEA in the past for advice on the legalities of this – they are such a vital ‘signpost’ as often even excellent SENCO’s don’t fully understand the legalities of statements.
We were lucky enough to have a language unit at our local school and the support has been amazing. Our son started school with no communication (we used Makaton) and now at age 10 is speaking in short sentences and up to KS1 with reading and writing, although he is still on P scales for many things. He is a ‘visual learner’, according to a test the EdPsych tried last year.
The problem we have is that the speech therapist from our nearest secondary with language unit has yesterday told us they will not accept him in Sept ’13 as he is not up to KS2. He has made amazing progress and still has year 6 to go at primary level. This leaves us only with two options – another secondary with no language unit, or a special school outside of mainstream.
I thought inclusion meant exactly that and will be devastated if we have to remove our son from mainstream.
The problem is that it is easy to talk about ‘inclusion’, but much harder (and often very costly) to make it work in practice. Plus, people interpret the word ‘inclusion’ to mean different things.
Quite a lot of secondary language units have entry requirements or guidelines which state that children should have a reading age of at least eight or nine. This is because their purpose is to provide language support to children who are otherwise able to access the secondary curriculum, something which children with significant problems in other areas would probably find hard to do.
You are entitled to insist on a mainstream school for your child, though not necessarily the mainstream school of your choice.
Please contact the Afasic helpline directly if you would like to discuss your situation in more detail.
I had to fight my local authority for a language base so it amazes me that a parent would turn a base place down. My son was in a unit from the age of 4 to 7, put back in main stream for 12 months where quite frankly he was drowning. Teachers had no idea how to teach a child with a severe language disorder, and wouldn’t admit it either (when I asked about visual teaching aids I might as well have been speaking Swahili, “why would we do that” was the response). After advice from Afasic and a private assessment we got him back in a base, where he is doing well. We will go to a Secondary with a base in 2013 (already got our place), and I have no doubt that if we had left him in mainstream he would have left school illiterate. We are lucky, there is no time restriction with our authority and they remain in base provision for as long as they need it. Travel is a downside, but it is sacrifice worth suffering for appropriate teaching, speech therapy twice a week, and most importantly “understanding” that this child is not a waste of time and effort, and is most definitely not stupid. PLEASE if you are offered a base think very carefully before you turn it down.