In recent years there has been a pressure to introduce an indirect “consultative model” to working with children with speech and language needs. It is favoured by educationists because it avoids the need to take children out of class and embeds any support children received in the curriculum. This paper reports the results of a recent study which indicates that Speech and Language Therapists are concerned about the universal application of this model of service delivery. It introduces and discusses a number of interrelated factors which need to be in place before the consultative model can be successfully introduced.

Background: The UK government set up a review of provision for children and young people with the full range of speech, language and communication needs led by a Member of Parliament, John Bercow. A research study was commissioned to provide empirical evidence to inform the Bercow Review. Aims: To examine the efficiency and effectiveness of different arrangements for organizing and providing services for children and young people with needs associated with primary speech, language and communication difficulties. Methods & Procedures: Six Local Authorities in England and associated Primary Care Trusts were selected to represent a range of locations reflecting geographic spread, urban/rural and prevalence of children with speech, language and communication difficulties. In each case study, interviews were held with the senior Local Authority manager for special educational needs and a Primary Care Trust senior manager for speech and language therapy. A further 23 head teachers or heads of specialist provision for speech, language and communication difficulties were also interviewed and policy documents were examined. Outcomes & Results: A thematic analysis of the interviews produced four main themes: identification of children and young people with speech, language and communication difficulties; meeting their needs; monitoring and evaluation; and research and evaluation. There were important differences between Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts in the collection, analysis and use of data, in particular. There were also differences between Local Authority/Primary Care Trust pairs, especially in the degree to which they collaborated in developing policy and implementing practice. Conclusions & Implications:This study has demonstrated a lack of consistency across Local Authorities and Primary Care Trusts. Optimizing provision to meet the needs of children and young people with speech, language and communication difficulties will require concerted action, with leadership from central government. The study was used by the Bercow Review whose recommendations have been addressed by central government and a funded action plan has been implemented as a result.

Services for children with speech and language needs in England and Wales are in a period of change. The context is subject to major systemic pressures deriving from government policies. These include the development of inclusive education and encouragement of multiprofessional collaboration in policy development and practice ('joined up thinking'). In addition, structures at local level are changing with the establishment of unitary authorities and the change from Health Trusts to Primary Care Trusts. Professional practice is also changing with a shift from clinical to community settings for speech and language therapists working with children. The present study reports on a survey sponsored by the Department for Education and Employment, Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly to identify the nature of speech and language therapy (SLT) services provided to education in England and Wales. The sample comprised all SLT service managers (n = 133, response rate 74%). The results indicate that services vary greatly in size and in their SLT: child ratio, with a mean of one SLT to 4257 child population. The caseload was highest for the 5-10 age group, and service delivery was targeted at these children, with low levels of work with secondary aged pupils. Most provision in educational settings was made to mainstream schools, but the provision of SLT time per child was substantially higher in specialist language resources. Apart from the preschool phase, most SLT provision was for children with statements of special educational needs. Prioritization of service delivery was usually by severity of need. The provision of bilingual SLT services was very limited, with only 14.0 full-time equivalents SLTs fluent in a community language, other than Welsh, where proportionately availability was much greater. Most LEAs funded SLT posts, although these were usually employed as part of the SLT service, with only about 10% of LEAs employing SLTs direct. However, 55.5% of SLT managers reported that recruitment and retention were problematic, resulting in gaps in the service. These findings are discussed with respect to changes driven by professional judgements on the nature of optimal service delivery, and government policy, with particular reference to inclusion and equity of service delivery.

In this article, James Law, Marie Gascoigne and Nina Soloff, of the Department of Language and Communication Science at City University, London; Geoff Lindsay and Sue Band, of the Institute of Education, University of Warwick; and Nick Peacey and Julie Radford, of the Institute of Education, University of London, explore provision for children with speech and language needs. The authors report the outcomes of Government‐funded research into the provision of speech and language therapy services and identify 13 key themes which emerge from a review of these findings. They proceed to make a series of important and challenging recommendations, many of which focus on the need for enhanced collaboration at a range of levels.

No abstract

Nicola Grove, who lectures in speech and language therapy and works in a school for pupils with severe and profound learning difficulties, and Nick Peacey, Director of the Special Educational Needs Joint Initiative for Training (SENJIT) at the Institute of Education, discuss the development of a framework for teaching National Curriculum subjects to pupils with profound learning difficulties through discussion with mainstream specialists.

Research learning communities (RLCs) are an increasingly popular form of collaborative professional development that takes participants into deep engagement with research evidence and empowers them to become researchers themselves. This study describes the use of the RLC model to make research about autism and school system change accessible to teachers in primary schools. An interdisciplinary team of specialists guided teams made up of a school leader and a class teacher through structured engagement with recent, high quality research. Participants devised and trialled evidence-informedThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

In this article, Ian Colwill and Nick Peacey provide an authoritative commentary on the publication of QCA's guidelines on developing the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties. They link these guidelines to the recent review of the National Curriculum and identify some of the key contributions these guidelines can make to planning, teaching and assessment. The authors conclude by raising some challenging issues for future practice and enquiry.Ian Colwill and Nick Peacey were both principal managers at QCA with responsibility for Curriculum Co‐ordination and Support and Equal Opportunities and Access respectively. They co‐chaired the Steering Group for the curriculum guidelines project. Ian Colwill supervised the production of the booklets and the website.