Part 3: Providing guidance and assessing applications and referrals for support

3.1
In this Part, we set out our findings about how the Ministry:

• provides guidance material for applicants and those making referrals for support;
• provides assistance for applicants and those making referrals for support;
• assesses applications and referrals for support;
• reviews assessment decisions; and
• provides assistance for students assessed as not eligible for high special educational support.

Summary of our findings

3.2
The Ministry provides varying amounts of guidance to those applying for support or referring students for support from each of the four initiatives. It has formal national assessment and review processes for ORRS and the School High Health Needs Fund, which reflect a higher level of risk (given the greater intensity, duration, and type of support) to the Ministry and to the students. The Ministry is implementing collaborative procedures with schools and RTLBs for processes to carry out eligibility assessments and reviews for the Severe Behaviour and Speech Language Initiatives. It is also implementing consistent access criteria for both these initiatives.

3.3
However, the Ministry's guidance for ORRS applicants could be clearer about the level of need required for eligibility. Also, processes for carrying out eligibility assessments and reviews for the Severe Behaviour and Speech Language Initiatives vary from district to district.

3.4
We have made four recommendations in this Part, for the Ministry to improve:

• its guidance and advice for ORRS applicants;
• the consistency of its processes for reviewing eligibility for the Severe Behaviour and Speech Language Initiatives; and
• the availability of information about other forms of support for students who are not eligible for support from the four initiatives.

Providing guidance material for applicants and those making referrals for support

The Ministry has prepared and distributed guidance material about all four initiatives. The educators and parents/caregivers we spoke with were generally supportive of that material. However, the information that is supposed to explain whether a student might be eligible for ORRS support could be clearer still.

3.5
For ORRS and the School High Health Needs Fund, educators complete application forms and send them to the Ministry's national office. A verification team assesses the applications and makes the eligibility decisions (see Appendices 1 and 2 for more information).

3.6
For the Severe Behaviour Initiative and the Speech Language Initiative, educators make referrals to the Ministry's district offices. Specialists in the district offices decide on the eligibility of each student referred to them (see Appendices 3 and 4 for more information).

Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Schemes and the School High Health Needs Fund

3.7
The Ministry has produced guidelines that set out the criteria it uses to assess whether a student is eligible for ORRS support. The guidelines include profiles of students to illustrate each criterion. The guidelines are available in booklet form and on the Ministry's website. Districts and service centres also produce letters, brochures, and "information packs", including some in te reo Māori, about ORRS support.

3.8
The Ministry's School High Health Needs Fund guidelines, also in booklet form and on the Ministry website, are laid out similarly to the ORRS guidelines. The Ministry also provides teachers and parents/caregivers with additional information after students have been assessed as eligible for receiving ORRS or School High Health Needs Fund support. The additional information describes what teachers and parents/caregivers can expect of the support services, the processes involved, and the responsibilities of the school and teacher. It includes contact details and explains the allocation of teacher aide hours.

3.9
Educators and parents/caregivers we talked to as part of the audit were generally positive about the Ministry's guidance material. However, they felt that the Ministry did not clearly communicate, in either the ORRS guidance material or the application forms, the level of need required to be eligible for support. This was particularly so for students with complex needs (Criterion 9 in the ORRS guidelines) and students with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

3.10
Some Ministry staff and some educators noted that the profiles in the ORRS guidelines are of younger children. Profiles of older children would be useful when the applications are for students whose needs were not identified when the children were young. Although the ORRS guidelines have been revised twice to make explanations clearer, the 2008 resourcing survey noted that people still found the criteria unclear. The Ministry is currently reviewing the guidelines to align them to the new curriculum. We were told that this review would include looking at whether the criteria could be simplified.

3.11
We agree that the information about eligibility for ORRS support could be clearer, particularly in the profiles used to illustrate each criterion. There are no profiles in the guidelines of students more than five years of age. The Ministry told us that this is because very few applications are for children older than school-entry age. In our view, the Ministry could include additional wording to give a clearer picture of an older student in the profile of Criterion 9 in the guidelines, because this is the criterion that is most likely to apply to older students who become eligible for ORRS support.

3.12
The profiles deliberately do not mention any specialist diagnosis because the Ministry wants those completing the application forms to focus on the student's behaviours and capabilities. The Ministry also said that the behaviours noted for each criterion were unlikely to differ for older children. However, in our view, the behaviours and circumstances described in the profiles could be interpreted in different ways, indicating different intensities and types of needs.

3.13
We analysed application approval and decline figures provided by the Ministry. The data shows that, in the last three years, the Ministry has consistently declined about 20% of ORRS applications. The Ministry told us that about half of these applications were declined because the level of need was well below that required for eligibility.

3.14
The Ministry noted that about two-thirds of the applications were filled in by the Ministry's Early Intervention teachers, who should be aware of the level, intensity, and types of needs meant, and were also aware of the circumstances that would influence the level of support required. The number of applications that were declined because the level of need was too low suggests to us that Ministry needs to also clarify this for its staff.

3.15
If the guidelines are not clear about the level of need required for eligibility, people might not apply because they mistakenly believe that the child is ineligible for support. Equally, people could prepare detailed and time-consuming applications for students who are ineligible – applications that Ministry staff spend time assessing and responding to. We recognise that many decisions to apply rely on the professional judgement of Ministry staff. However, there are clear benefits for the public and for the Ministry in ensuring that the guidelines are as clear and unambiguous as possible.

Severe Behaviour Initiative

3.16
Information about the Severe Behaviour Initiative is available on the Ministry's website. The Ministry provides district offices with letters about its general services, and brochures specifically about the Severe Behaviour Initiative. The letters and brochures are adapted by district offices, and distributed to schools and parents/caregivers.

3.17
Referrals are managed by district offices, and there is a standard referral form for educators to use. In the Tai Tokerau district, the referral forms have been translated into te reo Māori.

Speech Language Initiative

3.18
The guidance material the Ministry has produced about the Speech Language Initiative is largely written for parents/caregivers and educators of young children. This is appropriate, because students with speech language difficulties are usually identified at an early age by their parents, by health practitioners, or by staff in early childhood education centres. Much of the guidance aims to help parents identify whether their child has a speech language difficulty and, if so, the severity of the difficulty. In some of the districts we visited, the district offices had adapted the Ministry's generic material to explain the referral process in more detail. District offices also produced general information packs for schools.

Providing direct assistance with applications and referrals for support

Some Ministry staff provide help and support to people completing application forms and making referrals for the Ministry's support. Others do not see this as part of their role. Some applicants wanted more advice to help them to complete applications.

All four initiatives

3.19
The Ministry's specialist staff provide a range of assistance and support to applicants and those making referrals for support, including explaining eligibility criteria, providing specialist observations and assessments, and helping to gather relevant information from other agencies and professionals. The Ministry's Early Intervention teachers and other staff also help early childhood centre staff prepare applications for students who need support and are about to start school. All districts also have staff in a Kaitakawaenga role, who advise and help Māori students to access services. Some districts we visited have Pasifika liaison staff and established links with Pasifika community organisations.

Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Schemes and the School High Health Needs Fund

3.20
Applications for ORRS and the School High Health Needs Fund need to be comprehensive and highly detailed. Some Ministry staff give direct advice to applicants, especially to applicants for ORRS. However, while some staff in the districts we visited provided a lot of help, others did not see providing such assistance as part of their role. Educators we talked to as part of the audit noted that it was hard to access Ministry staff for help.

3.21
About two-thirds of applications for ORRS and School High Health Needs Fund are completed by the Ministry's Early Intervention staff and early childhood education centre staff before the child goes to school. Of the remainder, most are completed by a teacher designated as the special educational needs co-ordinator, or by the school principal, with help (in some cases) from an RTLB. This includes reapplying when applications by the Ministry's Early Intervention staff have been unsuccessful.

3.22
When the Ministry assesses eligibility, it considers the applicants' individual circumstances and the level of support they may already have. Some Ministry staff and educators told us that applications were often not comprehensive enough when the person applying was not familiar with the ORRS application process. We were told that, in some cases, educators were daunted by the application process and did not apply. During our interviews, a number of Ministry staff and educators also noted some frustration and discouragement when applications that had taken a lot of time, organisation, and expense were turned down.

3.23
The ORRS guidelines were revised in 2002 to reflect revised criteria. They were revised again in 2006, after feedback⁸ that the ORRS application process was too complex and complicated. However, educators and Ministry staff told us that they needed to provide schools and parents/caregivers with further explanations to help them to fill out ORRS application forms. Some of those we spoke to told us that they tried to tailor the description of the student's needs to particular criteria that they perceived to be a priority for the Ministry or, based on previous experience, criteria that were more likely to result in the student's verification by the Ministry.

3.24
In our view, the number of applications that are declined (see paragraph 3.13) might be reduced if the Ministry provided clearer guidance and direction about the level of need required for a child to be eligible for ORRS support, including guidance about considering the child's individual circumstances.

3.25
In our view, the Ministry's advice and support to all ORRS applicants should provide a clear understanding of the level of need required for students to be eligible for support, the process involved, and the range of supporting information that has to accompany the application. If the advice is not readily available, as well as clear and specific, students who would otherwise be eligible might not receive the support they are entitled to because their application was not completed properly, or not submitted.

Severe Behaviour Initiative and Speech Language Initiative

3.26
The Ministry is working to establish good relationships with RTLBs and their schools, because most referrals for the Severe Behaviour Initiative are submitted through RTLBs. The Ministry's RTLB Toolkit lays out the policy and requirements for RTLB "clusters" to prepare protocols for working with schools and the Ministry. Several districts we visited as part of the audit had put in place, or were preparing, protocols for referral procedures, although difficulties in establishing effective links with local RTLBs were noted in some Ministry districts. The Taranaki consultation process, involving educators and RTLBs in an ongoing and collaborative way, was noted by Ministry staff as a successful and effective process, and has been adapted for elsewhere in that region and in other districts.

3.27
Students who are identified as having speech language difficulties are initially seen by a speech-language therapist who, as part of their assessment, advises parents and educators whether to refer the child for more support. Some districts we visited had outreach initiatives for Speech Language Initiative support services, such as presentations to educators and parents/caregivers, and assessment packages for teachers, to help identify whether a student has a severe communication difficulty.

Assessing applications and referrals for support

The Ministry employs experienced specialist staff, who assess applications and referrals for support. There are comprehensive national criteria to assess a student's eligibility for ORRS and School High Health Needs Fund support. During 2009, the Ministry has been implementing national access criteria for the Severe Behaviour Initiative and national criteria for the Speech Language Initiative.

Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Schemes and the School High Health Needs Fund

3.28
For ORRS support, students need to meet at least one of nine criteria related to the student's need for support to attend, participate, and learn in school. Students are assessed as being at either a very high or high level of need. Each criterion relates to a particular area of need, including learning, hearing, vision, mobility, or language use and social communication. Students may need most or all of their school work adapted, specialist care, and assistance with communicating, moving around, and/or personal care. Students are also eligible (under Criterion 9) if they have a combination of three different moderate to high needs that interrelate to significantly reduce their ability to do school work.

3.29
For School High Health Needs Fund support, students must meet four of five criteria related to the student's need for physical or medical support in order to safely attend and participate in school.

3.30
The Ministry's team of eight verifiers assess applications against the criteria for ORRS and School High Health Needs Fund support. They follow a set of processes and procedures. Each application for ORRS support is assessed by three verifiers, including one with particular expertise in one area of the student's needs. If the three verifiers cannot agree, the application is considered by all eight verifiers. For each application for School High Health Needs Fund support, all verifiers independently assess the application, then discuss and agree on a decision.

3.31
Most of the verification team have worked for the Ministry for 10 years or more. They are experienced in early childhood or primary school teaching, and have specialist qualifications in special education.

Severe Behaviour Initiative and Speech Language Initiative

3.32
Throughout 2009, the Ministry has been implementing national access criteria for the Severe Behaviour Initiative support. The criteria include a history of unsuccessful interventions, physical and verbal aggression, putting the safety of others at risk, disruption to the class programme, property damage, consistent non-compliance, behaviour requiring the teacher to seek assistance, lack of (or inappropriate) communication with other students, recent trauma, and being socially withdrawn.

3.33
Throughout 2009, the Ministry has also been implementing new national access criteria for Speech Language Initiative support. The criteria replace the Ministry's national prioritisation checklist and guidelines, and a range of checklists and tools used in different district offices.

3.34
Service managers within the district offices, along with speech-language therapists and communication support workers, educational psychologists, special education advisors, and support workers manage the referral and screening processes to determine eligibility for the Speech Language Initiative and the Severe Behaviour Initiative. Most management and specialist Ministry staff we met as part of our audit fieldwork had worked for the Ministry for many years and were experienced within their specialist fields.

3.35
The Ministry considers that the professional judgement of its staff is very important when assessing all applications and referrals for support. It also recognises that its new national access criteria, when applied throughout the country, will help to ensure that those professional judgements are applied in a thorough and consistent way. We support the Ministry in its implementation of these access criteria.

Reviewing assessment decisions

The Ministry has clear formal processes to review eligibility decisions about support through ORRS and the School High Health Needs Fund. There are no nationally consistent processes or protocols for reviewing decisions to decline support through the Severe Behaviour Initiative or the Speech Language Initiative.

Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Schemes and the School High Health Needs Fund

3.36
The Ministry's verifiers regularly audit successful and unsuccessful applications to ORRS and the School High Health Needs Fund, to help measure the consistency of their decisions. Two verifiers visit selected students to check that the correct decision was made and that the criteria were applied consistently to students with similar needs. Audits can be general, or targeted to one particular criterion or an individual student. The verifiers record what they read, see, and hear as part of the audit, and provide a report to all the other verifiers.⁹

3.37
Applicants for ORRS and School High Health Needs Fund support can request, in writing, one or more reviews of the verifiers' decision within six months of the decision. If, after these reviews, the parents/caregivers are not satisfied with the verifiers' decision, they can write to the Secretary for Education to ask for a reconsideration under section 10 of the Education Act 1989. This reconsideration is arranged independently of the verifiers. There is no formal right of appeal available to parents/caregivers for decisions about the School High Health Needs Fund.

Severe Behaviour Initiative and Speech Language Initiative

3.38
At the time of the audit, the Ministry did not have a formal process for reviewing decisions to decline support through the Severe Behaviour Initiative or the Speech Language Initiative, when requested to do so by referrers. The Ministry told us that this was because the support it provided through these initiatives was of a shorter duration and less intense, and therefore posed less risk. Also, the Ministry considered that its team approach in district offices for assessing referrals for eligibility, including peer review, provided a rigorous decision-making process that did not require further review.

3.39
The Ministry told us that, if a school or an RTLB asked for a review of an assessment decision, staff in the district offices usually offered information about other avenues of support, or reconsidered the referral. To reconsider the referral, they might ask for further information or seek an expert opinion (for example, from a medical specialist). The small sample of documents we reviewed as part of our audit, and comments we received from educators, indicated that actual practices vary between districts.

3.40
After we completed our audit fieldwork, protocols for RTLB–Ministry¹⁰ collaboration have been set up in all districts. These protocols cover the process for reviewing decisions that decline support for the Severe Behaviour Initiative and the Speech Language Initiative. However, the Ministry noted that in some districts the protocols are not yet fully implemented. In our view, the Ministry should ensure that all its districts are consistently following protocols with RTLBs for reviewing Severe Behaviour Initiative and Speech Language Initiative assessment decisions that decline an applicant. Without consistency, students in different parts of the country may receive different responses to their requests for a review.

Providing assistance for ineligible students

The Ministry has initiatives and resources to support students with moderate special educational needs. It has some procedures in place to inform those students who are assessed as ineligible for the highest level of support about these initiatives and resources. At the time of our audit, actual practices in the districts we visited were variable and inconsistent.

3.41
The Ministry provides funding for a range of individually allocated and school-based initiatives and resources to support students with moderate special educational needs. The Ministry also refers students who have not met eligibility criteria for the four initiatives to many interagency or other support services.

3.42
Some information about other options for support is provided in the guidelines and the letter telling an applicant that their application was unsuccessful (decline letters) for ORRS and the School High Health Needs Fund. Decline letters for the Severe Behaviour Initiative and Speech Language Initiative also include guidance and offer the applicant the opportunity for further advice. In some cases, Ministry staff give direct advice to those who have made unsuccessful referrals.

3.43
At the time of our audit, the Ministry told us that districts had follow-up measures when declining a referral for Severe Behaviour Initiative or Speech Language Initiative support. These measures included telephone calls to the referring school or RTLB to provide advice and guidance about other support options, information in letters, meeting the referrer to explore other options, or directing the referral to another agency. The Ministry told us that the decline letters usually included an invitation to discuss further options.

3.44
However, some educators told us that their experience was a lack of active follow-up by Ministry staff. They told us that further discussion often depended on the principal's persistence in pursuing the matter. They also told us that the information in the decline letters was not particularly helpful. Educators told us that it fell to the school or RTLB to investigate other options, which could involve making a number of different applications to a range of funding sources. Although the Ministry has noted that this is part of the RTLB's job, as outlined in the RTLB–Ministry protocols, the Ministry also noted in its Business Plan for special education in 2008/09 that the Ministry's role included "brokering" appropriate support for students with special educational needs.

3.45
We looked at a small sample of the Ministry's decline letters for ORRS, and for the Severe Behaviour and Speech Language Initiatives, in the districts we visited as part of the audit. We found varying practices. The decline letters for ORRS support focused on explaining why the needs presented by the applicant did not meet the criteria, and did not provide much advice about other support options. Some decline letters for the Severe Behaviour and Speech Language Initiatives offered no advice about other forms of support (and, instead, enclosed pamphlets outlining the criteria for support). Other decline letters (particularly those for the Speech Language Initiative) described groups and programmes that might support the student, and enclosed information booklets and a list of private providers.

3.46
In our view, the Ministry should ensure that it is consistent (throughout all districts) in the information and advice it gives about other forms of support to those who are not supported through the four initiatives. Educators and parents/caregivers should be made aware of, and have access to, other support options. Without this advice and information, it could be difficult for students to access the appropriate type of support for their needs.

8: The feedback was provided after an extensive exercise in 2005 (see the Ministry's Local Service Profiling National Report, March 2005).

9: Revoking the funding is one of the options available if there is a significant mismatch between the information provided in the application and the findings from the audit. Applicants can also be invited to reapply.

10: Ministry of Education (2007), Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour (RTLB) Policy and Toolkit (2007), Wellington.