Section 5 of the Act requires that an education authority provide additional support to certain disabled pre-school children in their area, normally those who are under three years old. Authorities must monitor numbers of children under three years receiving support and the nature of that support so that plans can be made to ensure that their needs are met on transition to pre-school provision. Section 12 of the Act provides specifically for the period prior to a child or young person with additional support needs leaving school. Education authorities must approach, for example, any agency that they consider is likely to be involved with the child or young person in the future once they have left school. Authorities must take account of any provision other than education that they may need to provide when a child or young person ceases school education. This should be done at least 12 months before the child or young person is expected to leave school. This means it may be done when a young person is 15 years old or even earlier.
While improvements in planning for transition had improved notably in a third of authorities, in the majority there was scope for improvement.
Planning for changes in school education
Most authorities had issued guidance on good practice in planning for changes in school education. In these authorities, there was an expectation of good practice at transition, usually beginning from the pre-school stage through to post-school provision. A few authorities were improving pre-birth services and extending these through to adulthood. The most effective had addressed this strategically by reviewing and updating their staged intervention policies to incorporate pre-school provision from pre-birth. The impact of this approach was to ensure improved continuity of provision for children from birth to three years. Systems of Pre-SCAT were also embedded within the staged intervention process. This had led to earlier identification of children’s additional support needs and more co-ordinated support to meet these needs more effectively. Several authorities had established integrated, specialist pre-five support teams. These included care co-ordinators, early years support teams, home teachers, nurture training groups11 and teachers of English as an additional language12. Notably, most headteachers identified pre-school support as the most improving area of provision as a result of well-planned, increased support from a range of agencies.
In almost all authorities, annual reviews of children and young people’s needs provided the focus for planning for changes in school education. Transitions from nursery classes that were co-located with their receiving primary, and from primary to secondary school were well managed within the timescales stated in the Code of Practice. A few vulnerable young people at S1/S2 thought they had benefited from summer schools between P7 and S1. These groups had enabled them to form relationships with new classmates and improve their interpersonal skills.
The majority of authorities had appointed a transition co-ordinator at the post-school stage with responsibility for overseeing post-school transitions. Under a third of authorities felt that post-school transition arrangements had been less effective in meeting the needs of young people than transition arrangements at other stages. Staff expressed concerns about the quality of co-ordination and communication amongst agencies and access to appropriate adult services and resources. A few felt that links with further education colleges were developing to fill gaps in provision for, for example, young people not in education, employment or training13 and as part of a wider strategy for this group. Timescales for college transition were sometimes disrupted because review meetings were too early for colleges to confirm whether courses would be available. In almost all authorities, central staff were less clear about transitional arrangements for school leavers with a Record of Needs. Most had not considered these young people for a CSP during their final year of schooling.
Just under half of authorities expressed concern that adult services in both health and social services were not geared up to receive young people. These services did not currently support children effectively from child to adult services. A particular issue existed in through care and after care planning for children with learning disabilities. Authorities and agencies also needed to improve transition pathways for looked after and accommodated children and disabled children and young people. Capacity issues existed in terms of the availability of adult services to support successful transitions. In most authorities, new systems had yet to be implemented for identifying young people who had ongoing support needs when they left school. One authority was creating joint social and medical records for children and young people with disabilities to improve transition to adult services. Another was piloting a leavers’ passport from school to post-school services. This authority had a system in place to monitor the effectiveness of transitions from special schools to post-school provision and from special schools to mainstream schools or alternative provision outwith the authority.
Most authorities had begun to embed vocational life skills and experiential programmes within the curriculum. In a few authorities young people were able to choose alternative routes to certification from S2. Special schools had particularly good leavers’ programmes which focused on important social and vocational skills and supported young people to become independent.
In almost all authorities, annual reviews provided the focus for planning for changes in school education. Overall, transitions from nursery to primary and primary to secondary school were well managed within the timescales provided. Transition co-ordinators monitored transition reviews to ensure that guidance was followed and children and young people’s needs were being met effectively. Although a small number of authorities prepared children for multi-agency review meetings in advance, in most authorities, staff did not consult meaningfully with children and young people. In particular, further development was needed of approaches to consulting with and involving children and young people who lack capacity to make their views known. A few authorities needed to ensure that stakeholders, including partner agencies were aware of transition arrangements.
A few authorities commended the role of family support and home-school workers who were particularly helpful to families, and children and young people in transition. They often acted as links between families and agencies and took on the role of advocates at review meetings. A small number of authorities had experienced difficulty in planning reviews for itinerant children and young people.
Key strengths
Areas for improvement