Language units under threat?

Summary of Responses up to March 2004
Within the space of a few months during spring/early summer 2003 Afasic received several reports of suspected threats to the continued existence of language units. As a result, we decided to appeal to our members and other contacts to let us know what was happening in their area, to enable us to build up a fuller picture of developments around the country. We are very grateful for the large number of responses we received, and would continue to welcome further feedback. This is a summary of the information supplied to us so far.

Definite Closures
We received news of the following confirmed closures:

• The only language unit in a shire county in the midlands. We received two reports about this unit, one from a professional, and one from a parent. The unit had eight places for children in key stage one, and there was a waiting list. However, the LEA decided that no new admissions would be allowed from the school year 2003/4 onwards, and the unit would close when the children already placed there had left. It was not clear why the LEA had made this decision or how they intended to support children with severe speech and language impairments in the future.


• A secondary school unit in southern England will not be admitting any more children from September 2004, and is expected to close when the children currently placed there complete year 11. The parent of a child at the unit supplied documentation to us which indicated that the reason for this closure is the difficulty in recruiting suitably qualified speech and language therapists.


• An authority in north-west England is planning to close two of its three existing language units for children aged 4 -7 years. The intention, apparently, is only to offer a unit placement to children with 'complex difficulties' and develop an alternative service to support other children in their local mainstream schools.


• A diagnostic nursery unit in a unitary authority in the midlands. This was not specifically a language unit, but did take a number of children with language and communication impairments. The parent who reported this closure to us claimed that the school governors decided to close the unit, for reasons that were not known, despite the fact that it was in a purpose-designed building. The LEA were apparently unable to intervene.


• A school with an attached language unit in a unitary authority in north-west England will shortly be closing. This will mean the closure of the unit in its current location. No firm decision about its future has been made, but it may be re-located elsewhere in the authority.
• A resource base at a nursery in a London borough will shortly be closing. The parent who reported this did not indicate whether any alternative provision for pre-school children would be made available.

New units opening
There was some good news, about new units opening or other forms of provision being set up:

• A London borough has just opened its third primary school unit. The teacher who contacted us explained that all three units are more like specialist resourced provision and are much more involved with their host mainstream school than was typical in the past. In this borough, the education and speech and language therapy services together are starting up a Joint Communication Support Team to support children in primary schools and especially to improve support in secondary schools.
• A parent contacted us from a unitary authority in the west midlands to report that a new unit for KS2 children had just opened in his area. This was in addition to the existing unit for nursery/KS1 children.
• An Educational Psychologist working in a city in Scotland reported that her authority was setting up a new part-time provision in a primary school, in addition to the existing units, and had begun to provide an enhanced outreach service to a number of children in mainstream primary schools.
• A parent from a county in south-east England reported that a unit for pre-school children had recently been set up in her area.
• A parent from another county in south-east England reported that her authority was planning to set up shortly a 30-place secondary language unit and 2 primary units and 1 secondary unit for children with communication disorders, in addition to the existing units for specific speech and language impairments.

No significant change
Many replies simply outlined the range of provision available in the area where the writer lived or worked. This information illustrates how much variation there is between local authorities. Some LEAs have a full range of language units, covering all ages from pre-school through to secondary school. Some offer primary or infants' school units only, and some still have no units or specially resourced provision at all. Some LEAs offer some support services for children in mainstream schools, but again, there is huge variation in what exactly these provide from area to area.

Concerns about the future of language units
The largest proportion of responses came from people who could not cite specific plans to close language units, but nevertheless expressed real concerns about perceived threats to the units in their area. The comments received have been grouped into a number of common themes:

Threatened closure of language unit 'fought off':

• 2 parents living in a county in southern England wrote about the threat to close the only language unit in their authority, which did not in fact materialise. The exact sequence of events is not entirely clear. One parent (who did not have a child at the unit) reported that the parents had 'fought off' the threatened closure. The other response, from a parent of a child at the unit, reported that the headteacher of the school informed parents that the unit was under threat of closure. This was subsequently denied by the LEA, but the parent had little confidence that the threat had been lifted from the unit, given that there had been no speech and language therapist there for 9 months, and no therapy assistant for 6 months.

The need for language units: Several responses from parents and professionals stressed the need for language units for children with severe speech and language impairments.

• One parent living in a county in eastern England wrote to say that because there were no language units in his area, he had had to fight two Tribunal cases to secure a placement for his son at a special school for children with speech and language impairments.
• A parent in Wales who was struggling to secure a language unit placement for her son wrote to say that in her view more units were needed. Her local unit was full, so the LEA had offered an MLD unit which was not suitable, and even the MLD unit admitted they were often sent children with primarily speech and language needs because the language unit was full.
• Two parents from different parts of England contacted us to say that they were hoping to persuade their LEAs to open secondary school language units. One of these parents said the response so far from the LEA had been to suggest that language problems have resolved by eleven, and children will generally just be left with some residual literacy difficulties.
• The head of a unit in north-east England wrote to say that she was concerned about the long waiting lists for places at her unit, which catered for a large geographical area. This meant that very few children below statutory school age secured places there, which had led to the loss of a discrete nursery group and was not in the spirit of 'early intervention'. There did not seem to be funding available, from e.g. government grants, to expand units, but the LEA had recently identified new and larger premises for the unit, which was good news.
• Many other people writing from various parts of the country reported long waiting-lists for local language units.
• A teacher in a unit in a county in south-east England explained why she felt that units were essential, especially for children with severe receptive difficulties. She wrote 'I understand that children with physical difficulties could be included in mainstream provided the environment had been adapted. Unfortunately no-one suggests providing language -restricted environments in mainstream schools so that those with receptive language difficulties will cope. No-one suggests making the lessons less 'pacey' so that those with slow processing can keep up. I don't think our children can be fully included. They will always be consigned to a separate table with the T.A., doing activities which may be well below their intellectual capability, simply because they can't 'keep up'. Many of our children are very able but will be regarded by many non-specialists as 'average' when, in fact, they are often extremely able children. My big worry is that they will underachieve all their lives simply because the school environment had not been adapted to accommodate their disabilities.'

Language Units becoming too 'mainstreamed'
Several people wrote to express reservations about attempts to create 'inclusive' language units. Parents and professionals were doubtful about the ability of such 'units' to meet the needs of children with severe speech and language impairments.

• A parent and a professional wrote from the same local authority in southern England to express their concerns about a unit (one of two in their area) that had become 'fully inclusive'. According to the parent, this was because the school had been unable to recruit a new teacher to run the unit when the previous teacher left. This parent felt that the 'inclusive model' did not provide adequate support for the children in the unit, and that they had all suffered as a result. She explained that there was only one LSA per year group, so the children were not supported full-time. As a result she had since moved her son to the other unit in the area. The professional who wrote to us shared the parent's concerns and commented that she had 'grave reservations' about the inclusive model, especially for 'pupils with receptive disorders, and particularly when those pupils enter KS2'. She went on to add though that 'I am old enough and cynical enough to believe that rigid 'inclusion' is just a phase, and one day someone will suggest grouping those with similar difficulties so that they can be taught at a linguistic level that is appropriate to them.'
• A number of parents expressed concerns about a particular secondary school unit in a county in south-east England. This unit was opened for children with particularly complex communication needs and was intended for children who would otherwise have been placed in special schools. It offered highly specialised support. The unit as such has now been discontinued, and the children placed there are supported by staff in up to three specially-resourced bases. Several of the parents who contacted us felt that this could not meet the needs of the children for whom the unit was originally designed. At least one parent who would have opted for this unit in the past decided to appeal to SENDIST for a special school placement.
• A parent wrote to say that many parents in her area (in the west midlands) were concerned about how much time the children in their local secondary school unit were spending in mainstream classes.

Language units and speech and language therapy
Not surprisingly, this topic generated a number of responses.

• The head of a unit in north-east England expressed serious concern about the level of speech and language therapy at her unit which she felt was quite inadequate for children who had been identified as the most needy.
• A parent in a London borough wrote to say that the unit her child attended was not under threat, but had not had a speech and language therapist for six months.
• A teacher in a unit in a county in south-east England pointed out that in her area as in many others the Speech and Language Therapy service was already stretched and would not be able to provide the intensive input children with severe speech and language impairments needed unless they were all grouped together in units.

Language units becoming ASD units
Three responses from different parts of the country reported that local policy seemed to be increasingly to place children with speech and language impairments in mainstream schools (sometimes without statements) and to use language units for children with 'complex difficulties'.

• In one case this subtle 'change of use' had meant that one unit (in a county in south-east England) had been reprieved from a planned closure.
• One of the responses came from a speech and language therapist (in another county in south-east England) who said that her local unit was now under explicit pressure to accept children whose primary difficulty was an autistic spectrum disorder. She reported that she had been in contact with other speech and language therapists across the UK who said that similar things were happening in their area. She thought that her unit would either become in practice an autistic spectrum disorder unit or the LEA would argue there were not enough children with speech and language impairments to justify a unit and would close it down. She asserted that her LEA were no longer statementing children with speech and language impairment, an assertion supported by calls to the Afasic helpline from parents living in this county.
• A parent expressed concerns about a secondary school language unit in the west midlands which was now admitting children with a very wide range of needs, beyond a narrow definition of SLCN.

Language units and transport issues

• A speech and language therapist in a London borough wrote to say that the 3 resource bases in the area were under threat because of the LEA's new policy of not offering transport to enable children to get to school, though some of these decisions had been successfully challenged. (Afasic played some part in achieving this).

This raises the concern that some LEAs might withdraw transport in order to hasten the end of special units. If children cannot get to school, their parents will not want to accept places there and the LEA can then argue the units are empty and so should be closed.

The work of language units not being sufficiently well understood or valued by Ofsted inspectors, school governors or non-specialist teachers
A number of teachers in units expressed concerns about this.

• One wrote at length (from a county in Eastern England) to express her frustration, saying: 'We've not been threatened with closure as such but …..little things heads and governors say …. leave you wondering. It usually runs on the theme of 'well you are the highest paid teacher we have and you only teach 8 pupils and none of them from this school' ….. Despite achieving excellent results (frequently up to 3 years improvement in 18 months), being regarded by parents as the best thing that ever happened to their children, and by the schools we support as providing good service the last OFSTED resulted in changes that make our work almost impossible. I'm convinced they didn't grasp what the set-up was and the head left us to take the flak. My team and I are very worried that the changes will in effect make what we do so much less effective that parents or schools will say 'well, what's the point sending children'. The provision will then phase itself out which I suppose would save face at county level. However, we know the need is there and just because it is expensive it shouldn't be thrown away.'
• A teacher in a unit in a county in south-east England told us: 'We were recently inspected by an excellent OFSTED inspector who had been a headteacher in a Special School. He was totally on our side but said that the other members of the OFSTED team were querying why the children weren't part of 'normal' classes. We argued successfully that the children needed a language-restricted environment and that if they were given the right sort of help at an early age, they could return to a mainstream environment (usually with literacy difficulties but good strategies). The Special Needs Inspector agreed fully that there was a need for specialist environments.'

LEAs' 'determination to mainstream children with speech and language impairments' This topic generated a large number of responses. Several people wrote from various parts of southern England to report that their local language units had vacancies, largely because LEAs appeared to be pursuing a policy of placing children with severe speech and language impairments in mainstream.

• A teacher in a unit in an inner London borough with a number of vacancies reported that 'It is very hard to get children statemented when they are in their first year of school because they have not 'failed' yet, and if they are older there is often reluctance to move them from their current provision even when they do get statemented.'
• A parent wrote from a county in south-east England to tell us that her local language unit had a disproportionate number of KS2 children compared to KS1, apparently because the LEA was reluctant to statement younger children. This unit was now also providing support to children in the host mainstream school. This level of support was not available to children in other mainstream schools and so did not seem a very fair arrangement.

It is hard to see how this can be described as effective 'early intervention'. Of particular concern was a range of evidence from two particular counties, one in western England and one in south-east England:

• A teacher claimed that her LEA had decided that the needs of children with even the most severe speech and language impairments could be met in mainstream. She reported that all the existing units now had lots of vacancies because children were no longer being placed there. She felt that her LEA did not understand that severe speech and language impairment is 'very disabling and cannot always be dealt with appropriately within a fulltime mainstream placement' and regarded any such view as parents fussing. The over-riding concern seemed to be with the cost of maintaining language units, and she was convinced that the eventual plan was to close them all. She said that, when asked, LEA staff always insisted that parents were given 'fully informed choice and were CHOOSING mainstream in almost every case.' This claim is not however borne out by the evidence of calls to the Afasic helpline from parents of children in this county. Several of them have been told the county 'has no language units'. Some parents of course hear about language units from other parents or from speech and language therapists. One parent, of a child with language scores on the first centile, who asked about a language unit placement for her son, was told that he was 'not severe enough' and his needs 'could be met in mainstream'.
• A parent from the second county sent a press cutting featuring an interview with the head teacher of a school with a language unit which had vacancies because, according to the head, 'parents…are being told their children's needs can be met in mainstream'. The Head went on to point out that 'the level of therapy these children need is only available in specialist units'. A specialist teacher working for an LEA-run service in this county wrote to say that, although the authority had several units, parents were often choosing mainstream placements. However, calls to the Afasic helpline from this county bear out the head's claims that parents are being pushed towards mainstream. Many parents are unaware of the existence of language units. Those who do ask about them are told their child 'will not qualify' or often that the unit is 'full' or 'has very long waiting-lists'. Most parents in this county are apparently being told that mainstream is the 'right placement' for their child.
• A parent, who is very active in an Afasic local group, told us that his county's policy of placing children in mainstream was being achieved because many parents of younger children do not understand the impact of their child's difficulties on their ability to learn in a mainstream setting, and are happy to think that their child can go to the local school, at least until it all goes horribly wrong.
• A teacher working in a language unit pointed out that many of the parents of children with speech and language impairments appear to have difficulties themselves and are easily convinced when they are told their child will be 'O.K' in mainstream and that support will be given to ensure success. She went on to say that 'some of these children then come to us in year 2, with really low self-esteem and entrenched poor strategies.'

This suggests that there is some work to be done, for Afasic among others, to raise awareness among parents, professionals and officials of the impact of speech and language impairments, and to explain the importance of the right help for children with these difficulties.

Other concerns
Inevitably, although we asked specifically about units, we did receive a number of comments about other issues, especially speech and language therapy and the difficulty of obtaining this for a child in a mainstream school. This was becoming increasingly difficult now that many LEAs were trying to reduce the number of statements they issued. In some cases, they were now devolving most funding for SEN to schools. The problem was that schools rarely used this money to purchase speech and language therapy, and many health trusts only provided speech and language therapy to children with statements. To some people who contacted us, it rather looked as though LEAs and health Trusts were colluding to deny children the speech and language therapy they needed.

Update: April 2005
Since this report was written, we have continued to receive news about language units across the country, as follows:

• Protests about the decision to close the secondary school unit mentioned above led to a temporary reprieve. The LEA and host school still intend to close the unit in due course, but a vocal parents group has been formed to fight the proposal.
• 2 parents contacted us in some distress regarding plans to close the unit attended by their children, in a rural part of northern England. The unit was not full and there were suggestions that the LEA had been trying to 'run it down' for some time. There were also concerns about whether the proper consultation procedures had been followed. Partly as a result of this, perhaps, the plan to close the unit was postponed. We do not know what has happened since.
• We heard of another unit apparently under threat of closure, in a county in Eastern England. The parents of the children in the unit protested strongly, and the LEA agreed to move it to another school.
• A parent from another county in Eastern England contacted us to express his concerns about the situation at the unit his son attends. Afasic has heard many allegations that this county seems very unsupportive of its language units. In this particular case the unit teacher has left, whether willingly or unwillingly is a matter of some dispute. Although there do not appear to be any plans to close the provision entirely, and the intention is to recruit a replacement teacher, the unit will no longer be a full-time facility, but instead a resource base offering support on a part-time basis.
• There has been some good news. Several people contacted us to say that their authority is planning to open a secondary school unit. We believe that this will be the first such provision in NW England.

© Afasic, 1st Floor, 20 Bowling Green Lane, London EC1R 0BD
Registered charity no. 1045617
Copies may be made provided the source and date are quoted and the content is unchanged.