Learning for Living and Work
Framework
Developing a Framework to support young people with special educational
needs and disabilities from Year 9 at school in their transition onto their next
step
A Skill consultation response
December 2010
About Skill:
Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities is a national charity that promotes
opportunities to empower young people and adults with any kind of disability to
realise their potential in further, continuing and higher education, training and
employment throughout the UK. Skill works by providing information and advice to
individuals, promoting good practice and influencing policy in partnership with
disabled people, service providers and policy makers. Skill is a registered charity
and a company limited by guarantee.
For more information about us visit www.Skill.org.uk
Introduction and general comments:
As part of the Learners with Learning Difficulties and/or Disability (LLDD) External
Advisory Group, Skill was invited to provide feedback on the development of the new
assessment and funding Learning for Living and Work Framework (LfLW) for LLDD.
As requested we have asked our members and stakeholders, including our Post-16
Working Party, Council, members and FE Disability Advisers to comment on the
LfLW Framework.
Given the short timeframe before this responses deadline Skill is very grateful to all
those providers and practitioners who provided key information. There is clearly a
strong interest in the sector to develop a more cohesive learner centred Framework.
Skill welcomes the opportunity to shape the new Framework and the awaited SEN
and Disability Green Paper. We would like to ask the YPLA to take into account
Skill’s and the LLDD External Advisory Group’s responses to the Green Paper:
Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Call for
Views in the development of the Learning for Living and Work Framework. We
1
believe the key recommendations that resulted from our response are very
appropriate to this consultation, one of which included need for a Framework that
reflects the 0-25 continuum and is less focussed on post-16 transition.
We welcome the underlying principles of the Framework and are keen to assist the
YPLA in making it an easy to understand learner centred planning tool which can be
used to help all disabled learners in their transition into post-16 provision. We are
glad to see that the YPLA has recognised that the existing assessment and funding
systems vary depending on where the learners live and they may experience
different levels of provision, support or services.
Skill would be pleased to undertake more work with our network and members to
provide more practical input to a simplified LfLW Framework. Skill is also willing to
co-ordinate the input of disabled young people who have clear a view on how to
improve the transition process.
Learner centred planning tool
The Framework was originally conceived as a tool to facilitate person-centred
planning. In this development of a new assessment and funding Framework we
would like to stress the importance of the Framework being seen as a tool to help
young people and their families plan their future and that this tool remains learnercentred. Skill would like to emphasise that ‘learners’ needs should be met through
equitable and easily understood systems of planning, funding and placement,
enabling all learners to achieve their goals and progress to the maximum possible
level of independence and activity in their communities and in employment”. 1
It is very important that learners in Year 9 and onwards continue to own the
Framework as a transition planning tool and that through the introduction of the
Resource Allocation System (RAS) it does not instead turn into a funding allocation
tool. We agree that the Framework and funding system should support the network
of support agencies and providers; however ultimately the system should support
and empower the learner. If the use of the Framework evolved to be primarily for
funding purposes it would no longer adequately reflect the young person’s needs
and wishes.
Terminology
Skill is also strongly believes that there should be one clear set of terminology that
everybody and all agencies can relate to. Different agencies refer to the same
cohort of learners/young people by many different terms and there can often be a
confusing mix of labels reflecting both the medical and the social model of
disability.2For the purpose of this consultation response we are going to use the term
1
Through Inclusion to Excellence – November 2005 (p.3) and Learning for Living and Work:
Improving Education and Training Opportunities for People with Learning Difficulties and/or
Disabilities –October 2006 (para16)
2
‘learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities’ to refer to all students with any
type of disability and/or special education needs, within either pre or post-16
provision.
Skill’s three key priorities in the development of a new Framework are:

The Framework should be recognised as a planning tool not an assessment

It is essential that the Framework remains person centred

Common terminology needs to be adopted to make multi-agency working
effective
Question 1
“The current systems of assessment are not as integrated as they might be at
a local level. Through its various strategies the Government is looking to all
organisations assisting those with learning difficulties, disabilities and or
special educational needs to integrate their services with a focus on delivery
for the individual”.
Do you agree with or have any comments on this statement?
Planning document not assessment
Firstly we would like the Framework to be recognised as a planning document to
support transition rather than an assessment.
Person-centred transition planning
Skill agrees that that the current systems of transition planning/assessment need to
be more integrated at local level and more focussed on the delivery for the individual.
For a truly integrated and lifelong planning approach to be effective the Framework
needs to be holistic and include all of the learner’s needs, for example transport
needs. It should also be reviewed from Year 9 onwards and should not just focus on
the first post-16 progression steps - learners should be able to use the Framework
as an ongoing transition planning tool that helps them anticipate what steps they
need to take and what support needs they may require to develop the employability
skills they desire longer term.
One provider has requested that there is an end to the “emotional and behaviour difficulties” as a
heading as it is a catch-all term which is too vague and suits no purpose.
2
3
Regular transition review meetings are vital to ensure a fully integrated and
personalised approach to the planning document in order to gain the knowledge of
students and to obtain appropriate support for students.
Integration is important to ensure that we have a full picture of any assessment
transition planning document and collating these on to one document would be
worthwhile (depending on the quality of the information contained). One FE provider
has told us that the more collaborative the approach, the better the outcome is likely
to be. However it can be difficult to gain a consensus, and to make judgements
based on good, valid and recent information. Another stressed that it is important to
recognise that every learner is an individual with individual need and that the
transition planning and delivery process should reflect this.
Some providers were concerned that although a more personalised approach is a
great idea in principle it may lead to higher costs adjustments. For instance, parents
of autistic students may ask for complete one to one support for their son or
daughter from the same person throughout the student’s attendance at college. This
is not a possibility in some colleges where staff are already thinly spread and funding
for extra capacity is scarce. Managing expectations is part of the guidance and
transition planning process.
Data sharing and mutual outcomes
To fully integrate the Framework at a local level, the planning document and
supporting documents/data need to be made available to providers before they
undertake their own assessments. We would like the YPLA to consider joint
completion of the Framework by pre and post 16 staff as FE providers tell us that
colleges often have a good knowledge of learners due to school link programmes;
however they are not currently involved in the completion of these reports. Their
specialist knowledge could facilitate a quality 139A and a smooth transition.
Effective multi-agency working is dependent upon a shared focus on outcomes, for
example to raise aspirations and assist the learner to gain the skills needed to
secure sustainable employment/supported employment/independent living. There
are examples of funding successfully pooled through independent budgets where
instead of individual agencies pooling budgets, money is directed to the individual
learner who has control of funding their own support.
Better communication
FE providers tell us that the assessment process should be looking at whether
further education is a realistic option for the learner - if so there should be
communication between all involved stakeholders prior to the learner being accepted
on a programme.
4
Making the Framework effective
Through our consultation with stakeholders it became clear that providers feel that
more needs to be done to make the assessment process work effectively and be
relevant. One provider told us that too often it is just a form-filling, quota-filling
exercise with no accountability or quality assurance from Connexions Managers.
We were told that the current assessment process seems to be very
structured/prescriptive and not open ended enough. There should be a place on the
document in part 4 for a simple descriptive outline of needs and flexibility of options
so that there are more choices for learners. Other providers were concerned that the
format seems very complicated for those expected to complete it and that training
would be required if it is to be consistent. Overall it seems not as user friendly as we
would like to see and potentially difficult to administer e.g.
copying/amending/sharing.
Completion of the Framework
Question 2
Does part 1 of the Framework collect sufficient information to inform
decisions?
Firstly we do not believe that part 1 will collect sufficient information to recognise that
some learners may require support from a mix of providers.
Part1 should also include specialists and up to date information e.g. speech and
language therapists and health specialists. Frequently the leaner’s statement has
not been updated since Year 6 and does not necessarily reflect the young person’s
current needs.
In order to achieve part 1’s objective to make the Framework a young person’s
person centred plan it is really important that the Framework is owned by the young
person, for example that they and their family are able to influence and agree and
hold a copy of the document.
We recognise that sections a, b, c, d and e of part 1- to be carried out by the young
person, parents and the school are likely to require assistance in completing this
information. The guidance does not clearly set out who this may be, for instance, the
Framework co-ordinator/personal adviser etc. We consider that support should be
provided by a qualified, impartial guidance professional and that this should be made
clear on the form.
5
Co-ordinator role
Although it is important to have one person to co-ordinate the Framework from start
to finish the Co-ordinator’s expertise must not overlooked and perceived to be simply
an administrative role. The Co-ordinator has a clear role in supporting and
overseeing that part 1 of the Framework is completed. Many of those contributing to
part 1 will not have up to date information about the range of progression
opportunities available to the young people and will need help from the Co-ordinator
to fill in any gaps. Skill supports current guidance which says professionals
undertaking the Section 139A (and in many local authorities co-ordinating the
Framework) should be appropriately qualified and that a quality assurance process is
in place.
Question 3
What structures/processes do you have that support completion of the
Framework?
Skill has worked with Connexions services to provide training to Personal Advisers
and to managers to improve the quality of Section 139A assessments and the
commissioning of personalised programmes in order to meet the educational and
support needs of disabled young people. We would be happy to work with the YPLA
and the Department for Education to do this when the all-age guidance service is
fully rolled out. Please do contact us in regards to this.
Question 4
Do you think there will be internal constraints in terms of completing this
Framework?
If yes, what are they?
Yes
Practicalities of completing the document
We consider the Framework to be a confusing and long document to complete and
therefore anticipate that there will be internal constraints in terms of completing the
Framework.
We asked our FE stakeholders what they would like to see in a Section 139A to
better assist the practical assessment of learners’ needs. They told us that they
would like the Section 139A to provide more relevant and current information about
the learner’s individual support needs, for example:



background, previous support needs provided (school reports / SEN contact
details)
previous assessment details (dates and type / statement)
parental / carer / guardian’s contact details / report.
6



a list of qualifications that students are predicted to achieve or may have
achieved and support provided
the date of the assessment
Information on any risks to learners or other learners - without knowing risks,
colleges cannot identify how to manage them.
Sharing the document
To avoid internal constraints the information recorded in the Framework document
needs to be made readily available to everyone involved in the learner’s future. This
should be the only transition planning document the learner has to refer to.
Other suggestions put forwarded by FE providers were that quality assurance of the
S139A is required to ensure consistency and that an electronic format would allow
easy access for all individuals who needed it.
Better understanding of learners’ needs and support available
It is important that the S139As are seen as important, not just a paper filling exercise
by all staff including management. One college has suggested that Connexions
Advisors are more involved with both the learner and the provider instead of just
filling the form out. It is considered that this approach would provide some
accountability which in some areas is considered to be sorely lacking at the moment.
This feedback to Skill indicates that some local authorities are not currently fulfilling
their statutory responsibilities to LLDD.
Question 5
Do you think there will be barriers to multi-agency planning or collaborativeworking for completing this Framework?
If so, what are they?
We asked our further education stakeholders this question. Generally better multiagency working was welcomed; however a number of barriers were identified such
as lack of communication; no shared budget; poor co-ordination; different priorities
etc. Please see below for more information:
Lack of Flexible Budgets
Many providers were concerned that there could be issues around coordinating and
sharing budgets, especially since colleges have new freedoms and have severe
funding constraints. There are currently no incentives for agencies to share
budgets.
Any courses/students that present a ‘risk’ to funding are likely to be under threat.
Therefore providers will need strong financial incentives to offer certain programmes.
We would like to stress the importance of allowing funding to be flexible and to
7
support collaborative provision, so that it must be leaner-led. For example, a learner
may need a term at a residential provider to develop independent living skills and
independent travel training by the local authority and a Foundation Learning
programme at the local FE provider with job coaching by a supported employment
organisation.
Unclear roles and responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities need to be defined at the start of any process. There will
be barriers if responsibilities are not set and agreed as to ‘who does what’ from the
beginning. It is important to avoid duplication of duties - this would affect budgets at
a later stage in the process.
Lack of resources
Multi-agency planning and/or collaborative working is an excellent idea; however it is
costly in time and resources to set up and maintain the links.
Skill has contact with some 14-19 partnerships which have already facilitated
effective collaborative working.
Different remits and objectives
Often different stakeholders have different priorities and remits.
Schools may offer a large amount of support and often see this as essential;
colleges on the other hand are focused on increasing independence or assisting the
individual to progress into work. It needs to be acknowledged that post-16 providers
have very differing curriculums, teaching styles and areas of responsibility.
There is also a danger that the information is not always impartial and that some
organisations can have biased views on an individual’s abilities. It was suggested
that those who could have self-interest should have less impact in this process.
Lack of understanding of LLDD provision/support needs
There is too often a lack of knowledge about different stakeholders and their
individual education and training offer. There needs to be realistic aims and
knowledge regarding resources available for support post 16. For example, it needs
also to be acknowledged that the local college alone is not necessarily the most
appropriate progression route for all school leavers.
Lack of co-ordination and communication
Not all agencies are as quick to provide and complete information as others and it
likely that agencies will repeat information. Disjointed information often results in a
lack of continuity, and therefore providers find themselves going round in circles
trying to find the right person to contact. Procedures need to be put in place and
more time allocated to ensure the process runs smoothly.
8
The aim should be for learners and their families to know what their next progression
will be as early as possible in their final year at school.
The Resource Allocation System
Question 7
There are 5 types of criteria for support in part 2, are they the right
descriptors?
If not, what would you recommend?
The 5 sections of part 2 do cover the key reasons reasonable adjustments and
support may be required. However the lists of different support needs of each of the
5 sections may be too prescriptive. Some types of support listed under one section
may also be required under a second or third section
We asked our FE stakeholders whether they thought the allocating funds for learning
support using the ‘5 Every Child Matters criteria’ will be a fair and transparent
system? The responses to this question varied. Please see below for more
information:
No
Some providers felt that funding should be allocated depending on the individual
amount of contact/support given to the learner and that instead the Every Child
Matters criteria should run alongside with the learners training experience.
Colleges are concerned about the current trend of reducing the ALS awarded to
colleges and feel that there is a need to do a more accurate calculation based on our
knowledge of actual students progressing into college each year, rather than an
historic calculation. This is especially the case if local providers are expected to
make additional provision to meet LLDDs needs to avoid residential placements.
We are concerned that with the pressure on funding across the country there will be
an increased tendency for providers to spread low level ALS more thinly sometimes to disadvantage of LLDD who do not have higher level support needs. It
will be important that the Framework is inclusive of the wider LLDD cohort and not
just those with the highest needs.
It is a very ambitious plan which will involve considerable change but some
questioned whether the effectiveness and consistency can be maintained and
assured. It was considered by other providers that learners might put more
emphasis on achieving economic wellbeing as this can lead to or underpin the
others, such as better health choices, leisure opportunities, achievement etc.
9
Some providers raised the costs of accreditation as a barrier to LLDD. It was
suggested that funding should be made available from the various awarding bodies
for equipment and resources to enable the student to complete the course
successfully.
Some awarding bodies require authentication of an educational psychologist for
exam adjustments to be agree. This has a big cost to the provider and is a
disincentive to offer a place to students with these adjustment needs. A suggestion
would be that exam boards should accept the s139A as a valid assessment, so
avoiding additional costs. The YPLA and DfE should take this forward with Ofqual.
As we understand the S139A is a document containing information taken from the
students Statement of Educational Needs. If the S139a was signed by a person
holding a qualification recognised by the exam board then this would prevent the
student from being seen by an Educational Psychologist to have the relevant exam
concessions put in place.
Yes
The welfare of each learner is vital.
Question 8
Are the descriptors helpful and are you able to differentiate between them?
If not, what would you recommend?
The 5 section headings of part 2 are helpful. However the lists of types of support
may apply to more than one section heading, for example information should be
offered in an appropriate format to access learning, communicate in learning,
actively participate and present outside of the classroom (i.e. all 5 sections)
Question 9
Do you agree that part 2 of the Framework captures the required support
needs of a learner at an appropriate level?
If not, what else does it need to capture?
It is very important that the young person and their family are consulted when part 2
is completed. It is also crucial that those who complete part 2 are qualified and
impartial and competent to be able to identify support needs and the full range of
options to inform those who complete part 3. It is also crucial that those who
complete part 2 of the Framework must be trained in LLDD and education options
and ways of supporting or providing reasonable adjustment for individual learners.
We are concerned that part 2 does not capture the need for admissions and
attendance to be flexible around the learner, for example for people with fluctuating
conditions or for periods of hospitalisation.
10
We also would like to stress the importance of incorporating the independent travel
training into this section.
Question 10
Do you think that part 2 of the Framework enables the identification of the
significance of the support need of the learner, and the appropriate agency to
fund the support?
If not, what does it need to collect to enable this to happen?
This question is not clear
Question 11
Do you have any additional comments on this element?
Comments...
The support needed for one section may also be required in other sections and
should be shown accordingly, so that costs can be allocated to the appropriate
bodies.
The Framework Co-ordinator is not simply acting as a Co-ordinator to complete this
section. This must be completed by a qualified and competent guidance worker, as
an integral part of the process of advice and guidance. It requires knowledge of the
young person’s disability and the range of support options and of the post-16
provision available
The lists of support in part 2 should also be used in completion of part 1, 3 and 4. If
part 1 does not articulate the type of support needed as clearly as part 2 the latter
cannot be completed accurately.
The Provider Assessment and curriculum offer
Question 12
Do you agree that part 3 of the Framework captures in full the provider’s
assessments and curriculum offer?
If not, what would you recommend?
The document must prompt recognition that a leaner may have a mix of support
needs and therefore more than one provider may be involved.
Part 3 A.6 and A.7 does not prompt the wide range of adjustments or support that a
learner may need, as part 2 did. The provider’s assessments need to be equally
precise about the support that will be required for the learner to access,
communicate, participate, out of the classroom and in their wider personal and
educational development. The young person would then know what to expect and
can make an informed choice. Equally the provider can ensure that support is in
11
place by the start of term. This should also have a quality assurance measure in
place by the YPLA or local authority.
Question 13
Do you feel that part 3 of the Framework promotes and encourages providers
to offer training and/or learning that leads to positive outcomes and
progression for the learner?
If not, what would you recommend?
We asked our FE stakeholders what would be helpful to support lead
professionals/co-ordinators to facilitate the learner receiving a more holistic package
of provision and support:
Clearer and more realistic expectations
It was generally agreed that more clarity is needed on what is expected from the
college and that multiagency meetings should be planned early in the academic
year. There also needs to be realistic expectations of support available for post-16
learners. Support staff also need an indication from the learner that they too have a
responsibility to manage their learning and effort.
Clearer guidance and procedures
Providers advised us that clear guidance and on-going Framework training and
information on available post-16 provision can help providers enable positive
outcomes and progression for the learner.
Sharing good practice
It is important that providers are encouraged to share good practice for example
through regular assessment and feedback. It was suggested that support networks
should be established for those professionals /co-ordinators who facilitate the
Framework. This will help develop continuity and better acknowledgement of who is
responsible for the students.
Question 14
Do you feel that part 3 allows providers to identify and capture assistive
technology options for the learner?
If not, what would you recommend?
There is a need for greater quality assurance and consistency of provider
assessment. Part 3 does allow providers to specify appropriate assistive technology;
however not all providers have specialist assessors. Therefore they would need to
commission a specialist assessor - the cost of which may be a deterrent.
12
The Section 139a
To ensure that the Section 139a is learner centred it is important that the young
person and their family sign a copy of part 4.
Question 16
Do you feel that part 4 meets existing legal and governmental guidance?
If not, what would you recommend?
Skill is concerned about the cohort of LLDD who do not have a Section 139a
assessment but could benefit from using the Framework to plan post-16 progression.
Local authorities have a duty to provide a Section 139a assessment for all learners
with a statement. They also have the power to conduct a Section 139a assessment
for those they believe will benefit from one. We are concerned that due to current
funding restrictions within local authorities across the country the cohort of learners
without a statement of SEN will not progress into well supported and appropriate
post-16 provision. We would, therefore, like the guidance associated with the
Framework to explicitly highlight this power.
Benefits
Question 18
Do you agree that this process would support lead professionals/co-ordinators
to facilitate the learner receiving a more holistic package of provision and
support?
Comments...
We asked our FE stakeholders: what encourages providers to offer training and/or
learning that leads to positive outcomes and progression for learners with learning
difficulties and/or disabilities? They suggested the following:
Sufficient budgets required
Sufficient budgets need to be made available. The provision of training and/or
learning depends on whether there is sufficient funding. There is often a strong
need for a course; however there is no provision due to insufficient funds. If there is
a need, provision should be made: especially if positive outcomes have been proven.
Sufficient knowledge/training to match needs to support
Staff require the skills and knowledge to be able to match the level of learning to the
abilities/capabilities of the learner. Therefore all teaching and guidance staff require
quality training on how to support Learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities
in order to secure appropriate support.
13
Realistic Expectations
It is integral to the Framework process that a chosen package of provision should
focus on education, learning and progression and is not seen as respite care or a
day centre. This means parents, young people, school staff expectations must be
realistic from an early secondary school age. Colleges and training providers need
to be instructed and supported to make provision as accessible and appropriate as
possible for all learners. College should not be another route for pastoral care and
continued daily occupation. Once college is agreed as the appropriate progression
route; individuals should be stretched and challenged in order that they are given
every opportunity to become as independent as possible. Young people and parents
should share that expectation.
Review of personalised transition plan
Goals should be reviewed and support reviewed as necessary but everyone who
progresses into college deserves the chance to become an independent traveller
and to gain employment at an appropriate level.
Quality and impartial information advice and guidance (IAG) for disabled learners is
essential and realistic advice has to include careers advice needs to be given prior to
a learner accepting place at college.
This should begin in early secondary education and the LfLW Framework is the
basis for quality, impartial careers guidance. It will help the young person to identify
their personal goals, progression options, get the most out of visits to different post 16 provides, clarify their reasonable adjustments and support needs on leaving
school. The decision about which post-16 option is most appropriate is that of the
learner and not the funding bodies.
In order to make an informed choice the learner and their family needs accurate
information about funding as well as the provision and support available. The LfLW
Framework should prompt this information in sections 2, 3 and 4 and throughout
guidance and transition planning process from Year 7.
Skill Policy Team
December 2010
14