Sue Pavey, Research Fellow
If children with a visual impairment are to be fully included in mainstream schools it is not enough that they are enabled to engage in class based learning activities - they should be enabled to move from lesson to lesson independently; to manage as independently as possible in the dining hall; participate in physical activities such as PE and sports and in informal recreational activities during break-times and to engage in the many other aspects of school life. Such abilities encompass not just orientation and mobility but also independent living skills.
Independent living skills and social and emotional development have not traditionally been associated with the rather narrow, popular definition of ‘mobility’, which seems to relate largely to ‘travel’ aspects of mobility. For example Blasch, Weiner and Welsh (2000) provide one of the most comprehensive overviews of the field of orientation and mobility (O&M), yet independent living skills (ILS) are not discussed. Other literature which describes a broader curriculum including ILS and O&M tends to simply list these two areas of the curriculum as though they can be treated separately (e.g. Dodson-Burk and Hill, 1989; Stone, 1997). When they are brought together, it appears to be out of convenience. This is presumably because both ILS and O&M are areas of development with which children with a visual impairment tend to require additional support, and because the same ‘rehabilitation’ professionals often provide this support. However, this grouping of convenience is over-simplistic, since a closer inspection of these areas reveals that many of the foundation skills required for both ILS and O&M are shared.
Mobility has been described as “a skill of primary importance in the development of each individual”, one that most sighted people take for granted (Welsh and Blasch 1980, p.1). Whilst sighted children acquire such skills “gradually and without planned, systematic instruction from adults” through their ability to watch and learn from others (Lewis and Iselin 2002: p335), studies have shown that visually impaired children do not achieve the same level of competence in the mastery of independent living skills as their sighted peers. In contrast, many will require the intervention of direct instruction. Lewis and Iselin go on to argue that visually impaired children who lack competent social and daily living skills will not have the same opportunities to participate in the adult world of employment and contribute to their community’s wider life. Thus, support for mobility and independence has a crucial role to play in the ‘inclusion’ of children with special needs not only within education, but also in wider society.
A recent survey suggests that there are approximately 24,000 visually impaired children and young people of school age (i.e. up to and including the age of 16) in England, Scotland and Wales (Keil and Clunies-Ross, 2003), the vast majority of whom would be educated in mainstream schools. According to Stone (1995), the issue of providing mobility support for visually impaired children in mainstream education in the UK did not really emerge until the 1980s in response to the initial integration of visually impaired children (see also McCall 1997).
In recent years, there has been increasing concern over the patchy nature and quality of provision of mobility and independence support for children in mainstream schools within the UK (Lee 1988, Dawkins 1991, and Franklin et al 2001). A number of practitioners involved in teaching mobility to children were also concerned that current training programmes did not adequately prepare professionals for working with children, and that the growth in the number of professionals working with children has not been reflected in corresponding changes in the curricula of training courses offered in the UK (MSIE, 1997).
In order to address these concerns, a consortium of organisations including the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Opsis and the Department for Education and Skills funded a one year research project with the broad remit of investigating mobility and independence education for children in mainstream education.
The Visual Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research (VICTAR) at the University of Birmingham responded to the ‘invitation to tender’ and was successful in gaining the contract. This paper provides an overview of the key findings and recommendations from the research, and suggests ways that the findings can be used to help develop services both within the UK and overseas.
The aims of the project were somewhat ambitious; specifically, they were to define the mobility and independence skills that visually impaired children require; investigate the processes and people involved in delivering mobility and independence support to children; and to explore issues relating to professional training and the funding of services within the UK.
The research team adopted an eclectic approach to research methods, operating from the premise that there was already an enormous amount of expertise in the field. The research team sought to tap into this body of knowledge and expertise through a combination of literature reviews, information collection and consultation through documentation analysis, and semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a variety of professionals and people involved in the provision of mobility and independence education within the UK. The main data collection consisted of focus group sessions and interviews with more than 70 people involved in mobility and independence education, as well as reference to mobility and independence policy and curriculum documents held by services around the UK which were obtained in response to a letter sent to 156 LEA services and 19 special schools for the visually impaired across the UK.
The wealth of information generated from the research resulted in a number of key recommendations aimed at both policy makers and providers of mobility and independence support, along with many more practical recommendations about the delivery of M&I support, illustrated with examples of good practice drawn from the field. The aim here is to provide a brief summary of these findings, but further details can be found in the ‘Steps to Independence’ project reports (see Pavey, Douglas, McLinden, McCall, and Arter 2002a and Pavey, Douglas, McLinden, McCall, and Arter 2002b). An online version of the report is available at www.education.bham.ac.uk/research/victar.
Although much good practice in the field was identified in the research, there was an apparent lack of clarity about what the term ‘mobility and independence’ should encompass. Therefore one of the most important outcomes from the project was to construct a curriculum framework which would establish a shared definition of mobility and independence. Views from the educational field suggested a broad definition of the term was preferred which included not only orientation and mobility (O&M) and travel, but also broader issues such as “independent living skills” (ILS), “social development”, and “communication”. The importance of early intervention was also often highlighted, and there was common agreement that many of the foundation skills required for both independent living skills and orientation and mobility are similar. The final framework presented here (Figure 1) emerged from a combination of the views of mobility and independence educators and key recommendations from literature on mobility and independence and child development.
Early and Foundation Mobility and Independence
Advanced Mobility and Independence
Children with visual impairment live in a social world and not just a spatial one, and therefore social and emotional development was seen as a prerequisite to enable children to communicate appropriately, to acquire a clear sense of how they fit into their social context, and to develop self-confidence and self-esteem. A key aspect of the framework is the distinction between early and foundation mobility and independence and advanced mobility and independence. While the concepts of early and foundation mobility and independence underpin the higher order activities, it is clearly unrealistic to expect that all the foundation skills will need to be mastered before the higher order skills can be introduced. Nevertheless all aspects of mobility and independence should be considered as making up an applied discipline in which children learn to interact with, and move through, the environment with independence and purpose. Children with visual impairment are not a homogeneous group and children will have different needs depending on, for example, their level of useful sight, the age of onset of their visual impairment and the level of previous support available to them.
The first key recommendation of the research was for services to consider adopting the key concepts and skills in the curriculum framework set out in Figure 1 as the basis for their provision in order to ensure consistency in provision of mobility and independence education to children with visual impairment.
One of the surprising findings from the research was that many more professionals were involved in the delivery of M&I support than had first been thought. As well as having a multitude of different job titles, they often had very different backgrounds in terms of their professional training, and were employed by different agencies: for example local education authorities, social services departments, and voluntary organisations. For the purposes of the research reports and this paper, the main professional overseeing the delivery of mobility and independence support is referred to as the ‘mobility and independence educator’ or MIE for short.
Fifty one interviews were carried out with professionals from ‘mobility and independence services’ in 29 Local Education Authorities (LEAs). Table 1 shows the providers involved in delivering mobility and independence services to children in mainstream education in the LEAs:
Table 1. Summary of main providers involved in the 29 LEAs
Provider |
No. of M&I services |
Percentage % |
LEA* |
17 |
59% |
Social Services |
6 |
21% |
Voluntary Organisation |
5 |
17% |
Outside consultant |
1 |
3% |
Total |
29 |
100% |
However, the picture was even more complex than this table suggests, since there was often more than one agency involved in the same LEA. While the ‘main provider’ could be defined as the agency delivering the majority of mobility and independence education, many providers worked alongside another agency involved in the delivery of particular aspects of the mobility and independence curriculum.
An investigation into the delivery of the M&I curriculum revealed that it involved a complex set of processes and procedures. This process was seen as a cycle of delivery, from first referral through to completion:
Referral
Assessment
Programme design
Intervention
Review
Completion
This framework helped provide a clear structure for organising the interviews and the subsequent analysis. The extensive interviews provided information about the workings of the delivery process, and the subsequent analysis identified issues, challenges, and provided examples of possible solutions. Whilst a summary is presented here, they are presented in detail in the full research report (Pavey et al, 2002a).
It became clear that those working most closely with the child (e.g. class teacher, special educational needs coordinator, parent) often lacked the skills, understanding and knowledge to be able to identify the child’s mobility and independence needs and to judge whether the child needed to be referred for support. For this reason, one of the key recommendations of the study is that all children with a visual impairment should have a basic assessment to determine whether they require mobility and independence support immediately. If the assessment does not identify an immediate need then it should also indicate if the child could potentially need support in the future.
The mobility and independence educator should be responsible for carrying out all Assessments. Assessments should:
• be carried out in relevant locations (e.g. home, school, both familiar and unfamiliar), and involve people closely involved with the child
• include observation, discussion with the child and key people, use games and relevant tasks, as well as consulting records and reports
• be holistic, covering the broad mobility and independence curriculum
• use formal record keeping methods (e.g. checklists)
• result in clear action points and future responsibilities, copied to parents, school and other services involved
• result in programmes that promote inclusion and are directly relevant to the child by establishing links both within and beyond the school curriculum.
Since many people have responsibilities in the delivery of mobility and independence education it is important to define the distinct roles and responsibilities of the professionals and carers involved. The research found that one-to-one tutoring required the specialist knowledge of the mobility and independence educator, but that the reinforcement and practice of mobility and independence skills were equally important, and these could be implemented by teaching assistants (in school) and parents (out of school) under the advice of the mobility and independence educator. The importance of raising awareness of mobility and independence needs among those working most closely with the child should be recognised and promoted.
Many aspects of mobility and independence education require a considerable amount of time. A single person should be responsible for negotiating time allowances for mobility and independence sessions with the key contact in school, and the mobility and independence policy should clearly identify who these people are.
In allocating the amount of time for mobility and independence education, consideration should be taken of each child’s circumstances, for example their age, the nature of their mobility and independence needs, the appropriate time of day for learning the skill, and the impact of missing particular lessons if it has to be in school time. Time should also be available for the mobility and independence educator to advise others working with the child.
In terms of review and completion of programmes, children should work towards long-term educational goals, rather than experience a series of ad hoc interventions as was sometimes found to be the case. The mobility and independence policy document is vital, and should detail the procedures to be adopted for monitoring children. In particular:
• Children should be monitored whether they receive one-off support or are on a rolling programme. Responsibility for this monitoring should be allocated to a person with good awareness of mobility and independence issues (e.g. the Qualified Teacher of the Visually Impaired).
• The mobility and independence educator should be involved in educational planning and reviewing processes, in the UK this might include Individual Education Plans, statements and annual reviews
• Formal record keeping mechanisms should be in place to record the child’s progress, which should be linked to other formal educational planning and reviewing processes.
• Copies of reports should be given to parents and other agencies involved with the child so that everyone is kept informed and duplication of effort is avoided.
• Accreditation should be considered to reward children for their achievements, building up their self-esteem, and to raise the profile of mobility and independence with school staff, the child’s peers and with their family.
• Agencies should share information to enable a smooth transition from one agency/authority to another. This depends upon the establishment of clear mechanisms for the transfer of information, and appropriate record keeping as described above.
The majority of data collected related to children of school age, however, many interviewees spoke of the importance of early intervention with pre-school children, sometimes acknowledging that this need was inadequately met. A qualified teacher of the visually impaired is often ideally placed to be the mobility and independence educator but any pre-school mobility and independence work should also be linked in with the work of other agencies involved with the child. In addition to working directly with the child, particular emphasis should be placed upon empowering and involving parents in the child’s development.
While the remit of the research project was mainstream provision, it is important to note that many of the recommendations from this project relating to policies and procedures can, if sensitively applied, also address the particular needs of children with multiple disabilities and a visual impairment (MDVI). The additional needs of these children may include physical disabilities, speech difficulties, behavioural difficulties and learning difficulties. Aspects of the mobility and independence curriculum recommended in the report, particularly those concerned with early and foundation mobility and independence, may also be relevant to these children provided that teaching methods and activities are modified to be meaningful. This may involve teaching unique techniques to enable children to achieve some level of independence.
Since children’s social context is influenced by their cultural and religious background, professionals should provide mobility and independence education which is sensitive and relevant to all the children with whom they work. The mobility and independence policy should make explicit reference to the needs of children and families from different ethnic groups. The specific content of this will depend upon the communities being served. In particular, there should be policies in place to ensure that:
• all professionals are aware of and sensitive towards cultural differences
that may affect the content and delivery of mobility and independence education.
• there is a willingness to work with members of the extended family where appropriate.
• written information provided to all families is clear. Within the UK, this is particularly important for parents or carers who are not familiar with the English education system and/or for whom English is an additional language.
• services have in place arrangements for professional interpreters should a family require the facility.
• the service can respond to a request for the mobility and independence educator to be the same gender as the child.
Until the 1970s, children in the UK with a registered visual impairment were almost always educated in special schools for pupils with a visual impairment (see McCall, 1997). The schools often employed their own mobility specialists. These specialists were usually trained mobility officers or QTVIs in the schools who had been seconded for a training programme in mobility.
In the 1980s when small numbers of educationally blind children began to receive their education in mainstream schools supported by visiting QTVIs employed by the
education service. However, there appears to have been no nationally adopted mechanism for providing mobility and independence education to these children. The number of children with a visual impairment educated in mainstream schools has since grown and a complex and diverse set of arrangements has evolved for the delivery of mobility and independence education.
In most training programmes that lead to the nationally recognised qualification of rehabilitation officer (or rehabilitation worker) there is no direct focus on children - the courses are generic. Students leaving the courses go on to work in a range of settings which include voluntary organisations and some social services departments. However,
a number of students do go on to work exclusively with children. It is not surprising then that many of the qualified rehabilitation officers who were interviewed felt ill equipped to work with children - in particular children who are young or have complex needs.
A number of qualities and prerequisites to working with children were identified from the research, and from these recommendations can be made as to what training programmes should provide for rehabilitation officers:
• a sense that they have a responsibility for the whole age range of people with a visual impairment
• a grounding which develops an awareness of the differences between working with children and adults
• an opportunity to work with children in their practical placements
• an understanding of the role of a rehabilitation officer working with an education service
• an understanding of inclusion and inclusive practices
• an introduction to the mobility and independence curriculum.
In addition to rehabilitation officer training, a variety of training programmes exist which are specific to working with children, leading to a range of qualifications. All these programmes appear to focus more attention upon aspects of “mobility and travel” than on the broader mobility and independence curriculum as defined in this report. Additionally, the programmes all claim to be suitable for qualified teachers and teaching assistants, as well as for qualified rehabilitation officers. Second-level training programmes for professionals wishing to be involved in mobility and independence education is good in principle, however rehabilitation officers, teaching assistants, and QTVIs are likely to require different types of training which reflect their existing knowledge.
Unfortunately there is a lack of clarity about the comparative academic status of the different programmes that currently exist and what they equip participants to deliver when qualified. There appears to be no consensus about the ideal duration, design and depth of training programmes. In addition, interviews revealed that there were serious doubts about the future of a number of the current programmes which could lead to some vital short courses being unavailable in some parts of the country. Additionally, the field is becoming reliant on a few main providers, which may make the future of training provision vulnerable.
In terms of funding for professional training, there is a relatively well-defined route for teachers to secure funding for specialist training through the DfES Standards Fund. However, feedback from heads of support services suggests that access to the fund can sometimes be difficult, especially when budgets have been delegated to schools. It is particularly difficult to obtain funding for the training of teaching assistants. Funding routes for those employed by social services are often less well-defined and it was found that some students were dependent on bursaries from voluntary bodies, such as Guide Dogs, whilst other students were self-funding. In summary, it appears to be difficult to secure funds for the training of professionals in mobility and independence education.
Further research
As with so many research projects, this research identified a number of areas which require further research and development. In particular, the following broad areas need attention:
• the mobility and independence needs of children with multiple disabilities and a visual impairment;
• training standards and training routes for professionals carrying out mobility and independence education.
• those evaluating the SEN Code of Practice should monitor its impact upon mobility and independence provision, and the evolution of contractual arrangements between education and other agencies providing mobility and independence education should also be monitored.
Using funding provided by the National Library for the Blind, the findings and recommendations from the first project were used to develop an online resource for professionals who work with children with visual impairment. The aim of this online resource is to help users to understand and consider the different factors that are involved in the delivery of mobility and independence education to children with visual impairment. In particular the mobility and independence skills that need to be covered in a mobility and independence curriculum; how these skills can be ‘delivered’ to children including a description of the various stages, processes and people that are involved, and considering the needs of particular groups of children; the key considerations to make when developing a mobility and independence service including the training and background of professionals and issues relating to multi-agency provision; and the implications of UK educational policies upon the provision of M&I education.
In summary, the resource features six virtual ‘rooms’, including:
• The Entrance Hall, which describes the background and purpose of the resource;
• The Curriculum Room, which outlines the recommended mobility and independence curriculum;
• The Delivery Room which describes the 6 stages involved in delivering mobility and independence education to children, including referral, assessment, programme design, intervention, review and completion.
• The M&I Policy and Service Room, which considers the issues that need to be addressed when developing new or existing M&I services.
• The Education Policies Room, aimed at professionals unfamiliar with educational terminology and policies that affect the provision of mobility and independence education;
• The Resource Room, which includes examples of good practice evidenced in the field, a list of the recommendations made by the research team, and other useful resources including examples of assessment checklists, key texts, and links to other sources of information, and references used in the research reports.
The resource can be used to assess individual practice and/or to develop new or existing mobility and independence services. The resource was launched in the late summer of 2004, and can be accessed for free online at http://sti.nlb-online.org.
Blasch B, Weiner W and Welsh R (2000) Foundations to Orientation and Mobility. 2nd Edition. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
Cameron, R. J. (1986). “Portage: pre-schoolers, parents and professionals.” In: Cameron, R. J. (Ed), Portage: Pre-schoolers, Parents and Professionals. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. pp.1-12.
Dawkins, J. (1989). Bright Horizons: Guidelines for Local Education Authorities on Developing a Visual Impairment Service. London: RNIB.
Dodds, A. (1988). Mobility Training for Visually Handicapped People: A Person-centred Approach. London: Croom Helm.
Dodson-Burk B and Hill E W (1989) An orientation and mobility primer for families and young children. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
Franklin, A., Keil, S., Crofts, K. and Cole-Hamilton, I. (2001). Shaping the Future: The Educational Experiences of 5 to 16 Year-old Blind and Partially Sighted Children and Young People. Research Report 2. London: RNIB.
Franks, J. (2000). A Study of Practitioners’ Perspectives on Rehabilitation Work with Blind and Partially Sighted People in the UK. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, Submission for PhD in Education.
Keil, S. and Clunies-Ross, L. (2003). Survey of the educational provision for blind and partially sighted children in England, Scotland, and Wales in 2002. RNIB, Education and Employment Research Department.
Lee, M. (1988). A Case for Mobility. Edinburgh: Scottish Sensory Centre. Available online at: http://www.ssc.mhie.ac.uk/docs/mlee.html. Accessed 30/09/02.
Lewis, S. and Iselin, S. (2002). “A comparison of the independent living skills of primary students with visual impairments and their sighted peers: a pilot study”. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2002. pp 335-44.
McCall S (1997) “Historical perspectives. ” in Mason , McCall S, Arter C, McLinden M, Stone J (eds) Visual impairment: access to education for children and young people. London: David Fulton Publishers, pp. 1-12.
MSIE (1997). “Mobility specialists in education”. Visability, 20, pp.7-8.
Pavey, S., Douglas, G., McCall, S., McLinden, M., Arter, C. (2002a). Steps to independence: the mobility and independence needs of children with a visual impairment. Full research report. University of Birmingham Mimeo. ISBN 07044 23782. Available to download online at: www.education.bham.ac.uk/research/victar
Pavey, S., Douglas, G., McCall, S., McLinden, M., Arter, C. (2002b). Steps to independence: the mobility and independence needs of children with a visual impairment. Recommendations and Summary Report. London: RNIB.
Skellenger, A. and Hill, E. (1997). ‘The Preschool Learner’, in Blasch, B., Weiner, W. and Welsh, R. (Eds). Foundations to Orientation and Mobility. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. 2nd Edition.
Stone, J. (1995). Mobility for Special Needs. London: Cassell.
Stone J (1997) “Mobility and independence skills. ” in Mason H, McCall S, Arter C, McLinden M, Stone J (eds) Visual impairment: access to education for children and young people. London: David Fulton Publishers, pp. 159-168.
Welsh, R. & Blasch, B. (1980). Foundations of Orientation and Mobility. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. 1st edition.