The following is written by RDI consultant and educator, Zoe Thompson:
In the UK, a recurring theme amongst RDI parents has been how to get RDI funded as part of the educational provision agreed in a child’s statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN). Recently, I’ve started to work with some parents to try to ‘position’ their child’s statement so that RDI is ultimately the logical choice to meet the needs identified in the statement.
In the UK, a statement is a legal document that enshrines a child’s right to educational provision. The child’s needs are summarised in part 2 and provision to meet that need is summarised in part 3. The school that can make this provision is then named in part 4 of the statement. Everything flows from the description of need, so it is crucial that certain needs are described in RDI-friendly language.
My work at Bright Futures School (www.brightfuturesschool.co.uk) means I have now read the SEN statements of quite a few children. They invariably show a poor understanding of autism and this is where RDI parents and their Consultants can use their knowledge and expertise to ‘lever in’ key concepts that will ultimately support the case for RDI.
I think this might be best explained by using a real life example. One child whose statement I read was Leah, age 5. She was in a mainstream school and parents were concerned that although she was achieving academically, her social and emotional development was not progressing. One of the ‘needs’ identified in her statement was ‘Leah struggles to interact with her peers’. The provision to meet this need was ‘Leah should be supported to practice turn-taking’. In fact, as an RDI Consultant, I could see that Leah had not even mastered joint attention, so there was little chance of her mastering turn-taking. With some persuasive arguments backed up by research references on the importance of children with autism mastering the milestone of joint attention plus an exploration of how joint attention underpins so many other developmental milestones (including turn-taking), a goal focusing on mastering joint attention went into the statement.
This then meant that a joint attention target could go into the Individual Education Plan (IEP). An IEP has to be and reviewed monitored regularly to ensure that provision is enabling targets to be met. If targets aren’t met, then parents have a good case for securing alternative provision. In Leah’s case, the provision that the school put into place to meet the need re joint attention did not succeed. We have now been able to get agreement for Leah’s Teaching Assistant (1-1 support worker) to be trained to work on the joint attention goal. There are many other ‘needs’ in the statement that will not be met by the provision that is made in Leah’s school……unless there is a specific input commissioned to meet that need using a developmental approach such as RDI.
I am hopeful that this will be a first step towards securing RDI training and supervision for Leah’s TA, which is paid for by the education system. It’s a case of using the system to work for us by assertively and constructively ensuring schools are held to account. ‘Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey’……but then we all know it’s a marathon not a sprint!
Zoe Thompson is an RDI Certified Consultant in the UK where she serves as Head of Development for Bright Futures School, an innovative learning environment whose teaching methodologies are influenced by the principles and practice of RDI. Zoe is also an advocate and campaigner for children with autism, and has developed extensive networks within the autism community. She worked on the guidelines for the recognition, referral and diagnosis of autism in children and young people for the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and is currently involved in the NICE quality standards for autism. Zoe has been a Councillor for the National Autistic Society and has recently had work published in the journal 'Good Autism Practice'.