Facilitating communication between education and health services: the provision for children with speech and language needs

Abstract

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.

Professional roles and responsibilities in meeting the needs of children with speech, language and communication needs: joint working between educational psychologists and speech and language therapists

“…In the absence of strategic joint agency policy development to bring about the necessary practices, financial and organisational structures and protocols for collaboration (Law et al, 2001;Dunsmuir et al, 2006), it has been recommended that "EPs and SLTs [make] their own arrangements to develop opportunities to develop joint planning and collaborative practices" (Palikara et al, 2007, p. 85). Farrell et al (2006) In the local context of this study, two full day meetings between the EPS and CSLTS had already been held.…”

Teacher and speech-language therapist collaboration: being equal and achieving a common goal?

“…Based on research evidence Law et al (2001) recommended that the curricula of initial teaching and education courses should enable teachers and SLTs to work together. Establishing a comprehensive accredited system of educational and training opportunities for all professionals who work with children with speech and language needs is also thought to support interprofessional collaboration.…”

A qualitative case study in the social capital of co-professional collaborative co-practice for children with speech, language and communication needs

“…Although previous research acknowledges trust and mutual regard as important (Gascoigne , Law et al . , ), we argue that social–relational aspects of co‐practice have not yet been explored in sufficient depth to make recommendations for improvements in policy and practice. We therefore use social capital theory as a theoretical perspective and analytical framework with the potential to move beyond descriptions of socio‐cultural phenomena to inform change (Bourdieu ).…”

“…At the (macro) level of services these include reports of ‘border disputes’ regarding where funding responsibility lies, and lack of consultation between agencies during strategic planning (Law et al . ); at the (meso) level of operational partnerships in schools and networks an absence of clear collaborative agreements (McCartney et al . ) were noted; and at the (micro) level of practitioners’ knowledge and skills for co‐practice a lack of a common language, limited awareness of the connection between oracy and literacy, and poor awareness of respective priorities (Law et al .…”