Room 6 - Resource Room (Section 6 of 7)
Section 6 – Resource for developing a community-based mobility education service
Developing a Community-based Mobility Education Service
Occasional paper No. 2
By Geoff Aplin - MISE (Mobility and Independence Specialists in Education)
Mobility education, the teaching of mobility & independence as a component of the special curriculum for visually impaired children and young people, is still quite a new discipline. Much of its development has taken place over the last decade in some of our large specialist schools for the visually impaired where the subject is seen as an essential part of their educational provision. In these schools the educational ethos has provided a sound framework and continuing stimulus for innovative teaching, and mobility specialists have benefited by being members of a mutually supportive team.
Mobility education as a community provision has not enjoyed these support systems. In the community visually impaired children attend many different schools which often know little about the subject. It is not unusual for them to see it as quite external to their primary educational task. Community-based mobility specialists tend to be spread more thinly, indeed it is commonplace for a single specialist to cover a whole city or in some cases an entire LEA.
Now a number of LEAs are beginning to investigate the possibility of providing a comprehensive community-based mobility education service, among them Glasgow which over the last four years has been following a developmental strategy. The three mobility specialists working in the city have been allocated to schools covering different ages and abilities. Each has been given considerable freedom to develop approaches suited to those they are working with. Underpinning this work has been a long-term aim to provide a city-wide service which starts with a pre-school assessment for every visually impaired child and follows this with appropriate teaching in mobility & independence which continues as needed throughout the school years.
An Audit of Mobility Education
This first stage in the development process has concluded with an audit designed to evaluate these different approaches and to prepare for the next stage in the process. This paper will draw on this evaluation discussing:
- The need for mobility education in Glasgow
- The role of the mobility specialist in different settings
- The role of the school in mobility education
It will conclude with a review of the issues arising.
Defining Mobility Education
While it is increasingly recognised that mobility for children is an educational as opposed to a therapeutic concern, there is no generally accepted definition of mobility education. As the survey of need would require both the teachers of the visually impaired working in Glasgow Sensory Support Service, and those based in Glasgow's schools for the visually impaired, to identify pupils on their teaching lists 'and in their classes in need of mobility education, it was essential that everyone shared the same understanding of the term. Accordingly, meetings were held with a representative group of these teachers at which they were invited to review the mobility & independence needs of selected pupils, and to consider which of these should be met by mobility specialists.
It became clear that teacher's expectations varied according to the age of the pupil, the degree of visual impairment, the presence of additional learning difficulties and the particular approaches adopted by mobility specialists familiar to them. All shades of opinion were duly recorded and distilled. After further discussion the following definition designed to cover the mobility education needs of pupils at all age stages in mainstream and special education was agreed:-
"Mobility education is about becoming independent. The term is applied to that component of the special VI curriculum in which visually impaired children and young people learn through the growth of self-awareness, the active use of their senses, the interpretation of the structure and content of the space around them and the development of precise movements to perform age-appropriate activities with little or no help from others. While travel on foot, on public transport, or in a wheelchair is a central feature of this subject, mobility education can embrace other independent living skills including self help (meal-table skills, dressing, etc.), recreational activities and daily living skills, and can support any classroom activity which poses difficulty for these children".
The Need for Mobility Education in Glasgow Schools
The audit set out to discover the number of children and young people receiving education in Glasgow who would need mobility education. Visually impaired pupils are placed in two mainstream VI Units, Darnley for primary and Penilee for secondary. There are three special schools for visual impairment, Kelvin for MDVI, Carnbooth for deafblind, and Ashcraig for secondary age pupils with physical handicaps. But there are many visually impaired in local mainstream schools and in other special schools. It would be necessary to survey all these schools to discover the full scale of the need in the city.
As all the schools/units for the visually impaired already offered mobility education to at least some of their pupils it was easy to arrange meetings to set up the survey. Time did not allow visits to all the other schools. However, as most of these children are placed on the teaching lists of the VI teachers in the Sensory Support Service and it is these teachers who make referrals for mobility education, it was decided that they should be asked to assist the survey. They were happy to participate.
Following meetings with all informants, short questionnaires were distributed to VI schools and units and to the Sensory Support Service. Informants were asked to consider each child in terms of self-help, travel skills, physical activities, independence in classroom activities, and other living skills, and to decide whether they needed help to become more independent in any of these areas
The overall picture of need appears in Fig.1. Of the 271 visually impaired children identified in Glasgow schools, information was provided on 224 (82.6%). 139 of these, 61.6%, have been identified as needing mobility education. A closer look at the figures shows that the need for pupils in mainstream education is 35%, while in special education it is 89%.
Setting aside the findings for units and schools for the visually impaired the need among those in mainstream schools is 22%. In CLD schools (no information was available on other special schools) it is 77%. However, in VI units and schools 92% of pupils are considered to need mobility education.
Fig. 1. Distribution of VI pupils requiring mobility education Schools
| Schools | Total VI Pupils in Glasgow | No. of VI Pupils Surveyed | No. in Need of Mobility Education | % Needing Mobility Education |
|---|
| Mainstream |
13
|
13
|
9
|
61.5%
|
| Darnley VI Unit |
11
|
11
|
11
|
100.0%
|
| Penilee VI Unit |
64
|
64
|
16
|
25.0%
|
| Primary Schools |
26
|
26
|
4
|
15.4%
|
| Secondary Schools (Total) |
(114)
|
(114)
|
(40)
|
(35.0%)
|
| Special Education |
38
|
38
|
34
|
89.4%
|
| Kelvin |
14
|
14
|
14
|
100.0%
|
| Carnbooth |
23
|
23
|
23
|
100.0%
|
| Ashcraig |
82
|
35
|
27
|
77.0%
|
| CLD Schools (Total) |
(157)
|
(110)
|
(98)
|
(89.0%)
|
| Total |
271
|
224
|
138
|
61.6%
|
These findings reflect the growing expectation that mobility education should be available to all pupils in VI Units and schools, in three of which it will be seen that every pupil is considered to be in need. By contrast in local mainstream schools just 20% are seen to require it, the greatest need occurring in primary schools. It appears from these figures that the majority of visually impaired pupils in mainstream are managing to lead lives as full and independent as their sighted contemporaries. The high level of need in CLD schools reflects the priority they give to teaching independence and the difficulties they face in providing adequately for the visually impaired in schools catering almost entirely for sighted pupils. Mobility education has much to offer in such settings.
When the need for mobility education is broken into different areas, self-help, travel, physical activities, and independence in the classroom it was found that just 12 mainstream pupils (10%), all from primary school were considered to need additional teaching in self-help such as meal-table, dressing and personal hygiene skills. The number in special education was 76 (69%). The number of pupils requiring travel skills teaching in mainstream was 38 (32%). In special education the number was 99 (90%).
Independence in classroom activities, that is, the ability to organise and manage tabletop activities, to move freely around the classroom, and to locate items in cupboards and distribute them to classmates, posed difficulty for 100 (44.6%) VI pupils. This included 14 primary pupils and 86 of those in special education. By contrast the need for teaching to enable VI pupils to attain greater independence in physical activities such as PE and playground games was found to be rather less pressing. Only 59 (26.3%) of all those surveyed required additional teaching. In mainstream the need was confined to primary-age pupils, mostly those from Darnley. In special education only Kelvin school gave priority to physical activities judging 65.7% of pupils to need further help in this area of independence.
These more detailed findings for mainstream pupils would suggest that hardly any of those in secondary education require teaching to enable them to become more independent in self-help, physical activities or classroom activities. Once they are familiar with their secondary school, teachers consider that their primary need is to perfect the journey to school and to learn specific routes to college and work experience. This suggests a reducing need for mobility education as more able VI pupils get older. However there is a very considerable need during the primary years for teaching in self-help and independence in the classroom as well as in travel skills. Independence in physical activities is not seen to be so important, but this may reflect the need to prioritise scarce resources. It is noteworthy that Darnley sees the development of playground skills as an important part of VI education.
All the different areas of mobility education are seen to be relevant to pupils in special education throughout the age range although here again there is less concern about physical activities. Travel skills is the area which requires most attention, but it is interesting that additional teaching in self-help is needed almost as much. In CLD schools travel is given rather less priority. This may reflect the number of pupils in wheelchairs for whom independent travel is widely considered to be unattainable. Mobility education can sometimes provide very useful teaching in these situations.
The Role of the Mobility Specialist
During the first developmental phase two distinct approaches to mobility education were explored by Glasgow's three mobility specialists. One is based in the social work department and employed as a children's rehabilitation worker. She carries a large caseload of older children spread across the city which severely limits the time she can devote to any one school. Her focus is almost entirely on the child and the family. Her work will be referred to as ‘the rehabilitation approach’.
Of the other two specialists, one has been based mainly in a VI Unit located in a primary school, the other in a special school for MDVI children. Both have carried responsibility for a limited number of children in other schools but their primary focus has been to develop mobility education as an integral part of the school in which they have been based. Their work will be referred to as ‘the integrated approach’.
(a) The Rehabilitation Approach
At the time of the audit this specialist, who will be referred to in the text as the secondary specialist, was carrying an active teaching list of 20 secondary-age pupils in mainstream and special education drawn from up to 8 schools. Of these, 12 had been receiving continuous teaching for more than two years. As referrals continued to come in her waiting list had built up to 23.
The autumn term begins with a number of assessments after which a teaching list drawn from existing pupils and new referrals is drawn up. This list is reviewed in December and again immediately before Easter.
Because time must be allowed for travel between schools and because these secondary pupils can only be available at certain times during the week, compiling a workable timetable is complex and demanding. Teaching sessions can vary in length from 20-80 minutes depending on pupil availability, the topic, and the location of teaching. It is, however, rare to be able to work with any pupil for more than a single teaching period. Pupil availability is the greatest problem. There have been many occasions when needy pupils simply cannot be fitted into the schedule.
Most days are divided into three parts, the morning and afternoon in school followed by an after-school session. Work during the school day concentrates almost entirely on travel, particularly cane skills and route finding. No time is devoted to other independence skills. But it is the after-school session which is most valued because the pressure is off. Pupils are usually met at the end of school. They will learn and practice independent travel on an essential route either from school or from home frequently using public transport. They are also able to work on other independent living skills particularly shopping and the selection of clothes. At the end of this work the specialist often takes the pupil home where progress can be reported and advice offered to the family.
This rehabilitation approach does not follow a developmental curriculum. Rather it responds to individual need. A pupil may be referred because he cannot find his way around the school or cannot travel to a work-experience placement on his own. Developing the skill and confidence to complete the journey independently will be the focus of the work. This approach assumes that the foundation skills which underpin travel have already been learnt. Where these need attention time is devoted to them within the overall task. Support may also be given in the home to matters such as simple food preparation or the organisation of personal effects.
Teaching is almost entirely one-to-one and is largely self-contained. Beyond a planning meeting at the beginning of the school year, discussions resulting from safety audits and pupil reviews in the summer there is little formal contact with teaching staff. Contact with families is more frequent. On occasion they may participate in a teaching session.
(b) An Integrated Approach to Mainstream Primary Schools
The primary specialist works as a member of the Sensory Support Team. The greater part of the week is devoted to the VI Unit which is part of Darnley primary school where she teaches 9 pupils. She also has 4 pupils in 3 other primary schools making her total teaching list 13 pupils all of them following a continuing programme of teaching. At intervals through the year time was set aside for assessments. These had produced a further 4 pupils for her waiting list.
Teaching, which takes place entirely during the school day, follows a developmental curriculum which is divided into foundation skills such as listening skills, body awareness, tactile discrimination, cane skills, etc, which are taught in the form of games and exercises, and application where these are applied to travel in the classroom, through the school and its campus, and later on for more senior pupils in the local community and on public transport. The aim is to enable each pupil to travel with little or no help by the time they enter secondary school.
The coordinator of Darnley VI Unit sees mobility education as central to its work and is anxious to ensure that best practice is maintained throughout the working week. She has therefore arranged for the specialist to run a mobility and independence training course for all new staff members coming to the school which examines the curriculum, provides experience as teacher and learner, and prepares them to share in and support the teaching programmes. These contributions are reinforced and advanced through the specialist's regular updates during staff meetings and INSET training days.
The majority of travel teaching is carried by the specialist, but responsibility for other independence living skills, particularly self help, table-top management, and playground activities are taught by other unit staff members particularly Learning Support Assistants.
Another aspect of Mobility Education in the primary school is the teaching offered to sighted classmates. Here the specialist and other Unit staff work with different classes explaining what is taught often through practical exercises in which sleep shades are worn. Even in the First Year children are taught many ways to support visually impaired pupils including the importance of keeping official mobility routes free of obstacles, how to offer sighted-guide, and when to offer help or to facilitate independence.
Apart from the occasional evening events run by the school, all teaching takes place during the school day. This limits opportunities for contact with families. However, the specialist does provide training sessions for family members during parent's evenings and they are always welcome to come in to school to observe the teaching programmes. Care is also taken to provide as much information as possible through the home-school diary.
The work with the children in other primary schools is less elaborate. The same curriculum is followed but it is much more difficult to sustain practice when the specialist is not present despite including these children's support assistants in the Unit's staff training programmes. There has been no opportunity to teach classmates about mobility education. And as only one or two staff members understand what independence skills are being taught, demands on their time can easily distract from the maintenance of best practice.
(c) An Integrated Approach in Special Education
The MDVI specialist carries responsibility for all children below secondary age in Kelvin and for the deafblind children in Carnbooth School. He also carries responsibility for the visually impaired preschool children. In all he covers 48 children most of whom require continuing teaching in mobility education. It quickly became clear that this number was too large to work with effectively even with a shared approach to teaching. It was decided that he would at any one time have an active teaching load of 24 and would maintain a watching brief on the remainder.
As the aim was to cover both travel and other independent living skills, a core curriculum was devised which complemented and extended the primary specialist's curriculum. Foundation skills included self-awareness, sensory awareness, understanding objects and space and the learning of appropriate movements for any activity. This was applied to any stationary activity which posed difficulty for the children (micromobility) as well as to travel (macromobility).
It was in Kelvin that this approach was realised most fully. The specialist did take sole responsibility for some teaching programmes particularly those focussing on travel outside the school, but wherever possible he worked with both the teacher and the classroom assistant attached to the 7 classes allocated to him, jointly assessing need, planning teaching programmes and sharing teaching. Usually he would start each programme as lead teacher withdrawing at the end of an agreed time but being available to support if needed. This has permitted teaching to continue "in class" for an agreed number of weeks after which progress is reviewed. At anyone time a pupil can be following several programmes in different areas of mobility & independence.
This specialist's timetable takes the form of a rolling programme. In addition to his one-to-one teaching commitments, each term he works his way round the school supporting the staff in each class to devise and revise teaching programmes in a variety of activities including home economics, PE, and those taking place during lunch and break times.
In addition to direct and indirect work with the children he provides regular in-service training and often uses weekly staff meetings to outline new developments. Recently these have included classroom layout, the referencing of mobility routes, the redesign of the school playground, and the introduction of Smart wheelchairs.
When this work began visits were made routinely to pupil's homes and some teaching took place in their local community either at the beginning or the end of the school day. As school commitments increased home contacts reduced. Contact now follows a similar pattern to that of the primary specialist.
The deafblind school, Carnbooth, has had its own approach to self-help and classroom independence for many years. While this is now viewed as part of the school's mobility education programme, the specialist has not worked on these topics. Consequently the work in this school has been less extensive but has followed the same integrated approach as in Kelvin and in nursery education.
The School Perspective on Mobility Education
The majority of mobility education in Glasgow takes place during school time. The attitude and expectations of the each school will therefore have an important effect on the way the work progresses. The audit investigated how the different schools interacted with the mobility specialists.
First it investigated which independence topics were covered in each school and who was responsible for teaching them. This is shown in Fig.2.
Fig 2. Mobility & Independence needs and who covers them in different schools
| Schools | Self-help | Travel | Physical Activites | Classroom independence | Other (Daily Living) |
|---|
| Mainstream |
|
|
|
|
|
| Darnley VI Unit |
TS |
Mob Sp+TS |
TS |
Sp+TS |
Mob Sp |
| Local Primary schools |
TS |
Mob Sp |
No |
Mob Sp |
No |
| Penilee VI Unit |
No |
Mob Sp |
(TS) |
(TS) |
No |
| Local Secondary Schools |
No |
Mob Sp |
(TS) |
(TS) |
No |
| Special Education |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelvin |
Mob Sp+TS |
Sp+TS |
Mob Sp+TS |
Mob Sp+TS |
Mob Sp+TS |
| Carnbooth |
TS |
Mob Sp+TS |
Mob Sp+TS |
TS |
Mob Sp+TS |
| Ashcraig |
OT |
Mob Sp |
OT+TS |
Mob Sp |
|
| CLD Schools |
TS+(OT) |
NO |
No |
No |
TS+(OT) |
Key: Mob Sp = Mobility Specialist; TS = Teaching Staff/LSAs; OT = Occupational Therapist
As is shown, not all topics are taught in all schools. There is at present no mobility education specialist available to CLD schools. Teaching staff only cover self-help and give a little attention to daily living. Some of these schools have Occupational Therapy back-up. In mainstream secondary schools there is no call for self-help teaching and daily living is not covered.
Decisions about what should be taught are taken by different people in different schools. The mobility specialist usually plays an important part in this. In mainstream secondary schools including Penilee, pupils are routinely referred for assessment. Here it is the specialist who decides on need and negotiates teaching time to meet it. She follows a rehabilitation approach confining herself to teaching travel skills and some daily living skills. This is accepted by the schools.
Ashcraig which caters for physically handicapped pupils has a school occupational therapist. Responsibility for different independence topics has been divided between the OT and the mobility specialist. The OT teaches self-help in one-to-one sessions but supports other staff teaching physical activities and classroom independence. It is noteworthy that mobility education is overseen within the school by a senior staff member who is qualified in the subject and who conducts the assessments. Here the mobility specialist receives the referral together with quite precise teaching targets for travel and community-based daily living skills.
The Unit Coordinator in Darnley, while not formally qualified in mobility education, believes that it is an essential part of visual impairment education and that every member of the unit staff has a part to play in promoting each pupil's independence. She has worked closely with the primary mobility specialist who specialises in travel and classroom independence and has produced a written policy to cover almost all independence topics but also stipulates that all staff should receive training and regular support. Here it will be seen that a close working relationship exists between the mobility specialist and the coordinator, and the unit staff who contribute widely to mobility and independence.
There is a less close relationship between the specialist and the other schools she serves where she is just one of many specialists who come in to support individual pupils. Here the visiting specialist role means that she is expected to carry out her assessment and arrange her teaching largely independently of the school.
The working relationship between Kelvin and their mobility specialist is different again. He was invited in to the school by the head teacher to set up an integrated mobility education programme. The assistant head was given responsibility for this programme. Together they have prepared a mobility education policy and have worked to create an approach which supports the staff and encourages each pupil to become more independent throughout the working week. While he is responsible for staff training and support, and the development of the learning environment, much of the programme planning and teaching is shared. This is possible because the whole process is overseen and coordinated by the assistant head.
In Carnbooth the assistant head actively oversees mobility education in the school. Each deafblind pupil follows a curriculum which is adjusted to individual need. This invariably includes self-help. Teaching is mainly one-to-one and is provided by a teacher or instructor who will also teach mobility and independence. The specialist who is only required to cover travel skills is essentially a resource to the staff to guiding and supporting them to do to this.
Indicators for Future Development
During the first stage of development the three specialists worked quite separately. Now it is time to bring them together into a single service. In this concluding section we consider how this service might be organised, and what additional resources would be required.
(1) Meeting the Need for Mobility Education in Glasgow
The survey of need found 139 pupils in Glasgow who need teaching in mobility & independence. Of these, 57 have been receiving teaching from mobility specialists leaving a further 82 with no direct teaching. Of those receiving teaching, 47 have been assessed as having long-term needs. Some are blind. Some are partially sighted but have serious perceptual difficulties. Many have learning difficulties additional to their visual impairment. All need to follow a developmental curriculum which lays sound foundations and steadily widens independence learning. This cannot be done without consistent systematic long-term teaching.
In addition to information about those actually receiving teaching in mobility & independence, assessment data was provided for a further 19 VI pupils. Of these 14 were shown to require continuing teaching. In all 61 children are known to have long-term needs. If assessments had been completed on all the remaining candidates, particularly those in CLD and other special schools, the number with long-term needs would have been considerably higher.
This highlights a dilemma which faces the majority of mobility specialists. Either one offers short sequences of teaching to a large number of pupils and makes little impact on their capacity for independence, or one devotes more time to a smaller number almost inevitably leading to a steady growth in the waiting list and pressure to "see" more children.
As has been shown the secondary specialist carries a large waiting list, as does the MDVI specialist. Only the primary specialist has been able to meet her long-term teaching commitments, and this has been due largely to the fact that she has only been in this new post for two years and is still building up her teaching list. She anticipates that this will grow by up to four children each year with little or no loss to secondary school teaching for some time. Very soon she too will be under pressure to cut down her long-term teaching commitments.
The message is clear, if a credible service is to be offered, time must be safeguarded for long-term teaching programmes as well as providing for assessments and short-term teaching. If all those requiring mobility education in Glasgow are to be covered adequately, additional specialists will be required. But it will also be important to explore other ways of sharing the teaching load. One approach is to arrange some form of shared responsibility for mobility education with class teachers and particularly with LSAs as is done in Kelvin and Carnbooth and to a lesser extent in Darnley. A second approach would be to consider the creation of Mobility Education Assistant posts which would serve a similar function to LSAs. Such assistants could play a valuable role carrying through programmes which have been designed and modelled by the specialist generating more time for the assessments, programme writing, the organisation of learning environments and other activities in which she specialises.
(2) The Need for an Agreed Mobility and Independence Curriculum
The audit has shown that each mobility specialist followed a slightly different curriculum in terms of both focus and content. Indeed, as there is no generally agreed mobility & independence curriculum each was obliged to create their own. In primary and secondary the taught curriculum was planned just for these age groups. Only in the MDVI context where work began in preschool and continued well into adolescence, was a longer view taken. The most obvious example of discontinuity was where children who had started using a long cane during preschool were expected to set this aside during their first year in primary because this was not considered appropriate until the second year. In the event parental intervention ensured continuity.
An agreed curriculum is essential for any coordinated approach to mobility education. This should provide a framework which underpins assessment and guides teaching through preschool, primary and secondary school. Such a framework can also be used in special education although children will move through it more slowly. If it is to be used in this way it cannot be tied to age stages. Rather it needs to offer a logical sequence of learning, laying cognitive, sensory and action foundations, applying these to simple practical situations, then progressively building on these and applying them to a wider range of activities.
It may be helpful to have some precise goals. For example, it might be appropriate to define what mobility and independence skills a child destined for mainstream should have acquired by the time he enters primary school and again by entry to secondary school. This would help to shape the curriculum towards immediate practical needs.
The lack of a curriculum is a major obstacle to the development of an effective service. Designing ones own is not a real solution. It is encouraging that this audit has been conducted during Birmingham University's national study into Mobility & Independence Education. One of the goals of this study is to provide a framework for such a curriculum. This promises to provide the basis for an agreed curriculum which does span preschool, childhood and adolescence and does embrace independence rather than just travel skills.
(3) Two Main Areas of Practice
The audit demonstrates the advantages of concentrating on a particular section of the school population. The primary specialist was able to concentrate on the mobility & independence curriculum for this age group and through working with staff at different levels was well informed about contemporary trends in primary education. This helped her to integrate her work more closely into the work of the school. But it also meant that she was more readily accepted as a colleague and collaborator in Darnley. Similar advantages were demonstrated for the MDVI specialist. Had either specialist been given a more generic workload covering a wider range of schools both collaboration and integration would have been more difficult.
Visually impaired pupils in mainstream should cover a major part of a mobility & independence curriculum during their time in primary education. Developing and delivering teaching in this setting constitutes a viable specialism within mobility education particularly at a time when the subject itself is in the process of development. The teaching of mobility & independence to MDVI children may be seen as a second specialism. It was fortuitous that two of the Glasgow specialists have been working in these distinct areas of practice. There are strong reasons for sustaining them as separate but related parts of the new service.
(4) Providing for Secondary Pupils
Again it is fortuitous that the audit was able to look at the work of a specialist who has been concentrating on secondary-age pupils. The fact that she is based in the social work department and is a member of a team of rehabilitation workers is an added bonus for it helps to define the kind of service that should be available to this age group if a full programme of mobility education is provided during the preschool and primary years.
Such a provision has only begun to become available in the last two years and there are a number of secondary-age pupils who this specialist has been teaching who have needs which will in future be covered in primary school. However we do begin to see mobility education in secondary school as the concluding stage in a long process. Teaching for the most part is short-term supporting pupils in specific activities such as learning a route to a work-experience placement, tackling chores at home, planning for and purchasing clothes, or participating in an evening club activity.
It is advantageous that this specialist can work flexi-hours because much of the work needs to take place after school. Indeed, mobility education for this age group is a bridge to adulthood. Arguably part of the remit of this specialist could be to support visually impaired pupils into tertiary education.
(5) Providing for VI Pupils in Pre-School
Mobility education needs to start as young as possible. The audit found that the starting age in Glasgow is around 3 years when these children can enter the city's VI nursery in Kelvin where they will spend up to two years. During this time the most able pupils will spend time each week in Wyndford Nursery School where they will be included in all the activities.
The MDVI specialist who has a special interest in nursery education collaborates closely with the pre-school VI teacher from the sensory support service. Together they have devised mobility & independence programmes which link closely to other teaching. Mobility routes have been agreed, mapped and referenced. It has been found that durable reference symbols are needed. Anything soft tends to be chewed and sometimes swallowed.
The same integrated approach to mobility education that has been developed in Kelvin is employed in the pre-school work. The specialist conducts the assessments, in this case jointly with the preschool teacher. He writes the programmes, tests them and rehearses staff members in teaching them. Responsibility for the teaching is then transferred to these staff members when they are ready to take this on. Regular training and support is provided often with the use of videos.
This model of working is shown to be effective. It is helped by the ready acceptance of the importance of mobility & independence in nursery education. The close working relationship with the pre-school VI teacher, and with the Head of Wyndford, has been particularly important in the development of what is an essential first step in mobility education.
(6) Managing the Developing Service
Each of the three specialists was, in practice, accountable to a different manager none of whom would claim to have a detailed knowledge of mobility education. They encouraged and allowed considerable freedom to each specialist to devise an approach suited to the schools they were serving. This enabling management approach contributed to the development of the three different approaches outlined earlier.
Management of this kind is reported quite widely among mobility specialists. It is inevitable where a new relatively untried discipline is added to the work of an existing organisation. But it is inappropriate to place so much responsibility on the shoulders of the individual specialist. Where this detailed information is lacking external advice and support should be provided to the managers.
If the number of specialists in Glasgow remains the same such a system of support is needed here. If they grow it will be important to consider a specialist team leader.
(7) Responding to Family Expectations
Parents and other family members invariably want the best for their visually impaired children, and rightly so. They want the best available education and they want mobility. Usually they ask for mobility "training". This may take place away from home during school time, but many would like to seeing it taking place in the home community.
This can and does occur in Glasgow either at the beginning or the end of a school day. It is usually part of a teaching programme which is also taking place in school. At least one home visit a year to each child is scheduled and modest pieces of work are undertaken in the home area if they can be arranged, but both the primary and the MDVI specialist find themselves fully occupied by the work in school. For them the school is the primary context for learning. By contrast, the secondary specialist spends more time in the local community and is able to maintain much closer links with pupil's homes.
The experience of the audit would suggest that time does not allow a mobility specialist to cover a full teaching load in school together with the necessary provision of staff training and support, and to provide satisfactorily for children in their home area. Nor is holiday working a real solution. A specialist's terms of employment may require this, and a modest amount of teaching may take place during this time. But school holidays do not last that long, particularly at Christmas and Easter and both specialists and families need their own holidays outside term-time.
Work on mobility & independence seems to be most successfully sustained with families through a commitment to share information about what is being taught in school through home-school diaries, telephone, e-mail, and the occasional video of work in school, but also through parents evenings where they can work on specific problems and develop their own skills with the specialist. Parents and other family members often underestimate their ability to share responsibility for mobility education with the specialist. But they can contribute just as other staff members are already doing in school.
(8) Training Issues
The audit draws attention to the increasing variety of tasks which fall to the mobility specialist. It is widely recognised that the currently available training does not prepare them adequately for many of these. It is not within the scope of this paper to list what is needed but rather to argue for professional training programmes for specialists to be based on a careful analysis of knowledge and skills needed in this changing field of practice. Linked to this, it is to be hoped that in Glasgow (and elsewhere) provision for student placements can be built into the work of the developing service.
The audit also highlights the importance of training which enables both family members and different members of school staff to play their part in mobility education. If the teaching of mobility & independence is to be integrated into the life and work of the school, class teachers will need to know what is covered and how it is taught, indeed some will have the opportunity to contribute to the teaching. Classroom Assistants (LSAs) will almost certainly have the opportunity to teach it and will need to be equipped to do so. But just as important, the school will need a designated senior staff member with the knowledge and skill to oversee the development and continuity of mobility education.
In Conclusion
This modest study into how a community-based mobility education service may be developed is based on the belief that mobility & Independence is an educational responsibility and that life and work in school can provide the main context in which it is taught.
The study has demonstrated that a little over one third of VI pupils in mainstream require teaching in this subject. In contrast, the great majority of those in special education are shown to need it.
It has outlined two different approaches to mobility education, the rehabilitation approach and the integrated approach and has shown that there is a place for both in a service which provides for children throughout their school careers. An integrated approach where a range of teaching staff share responsibility for mobility education is the preferred method of working in nursery, primary and special schools, and examples have been offered of the way in which this responsibility can be shared. The rather more detached rehabilitation approach is more successful in secondary schools where the majority of the work needs to take place outside the school. It is particularly relevant if the specialist concerned can assist in the transfer of school leavers to work or tertiary education.
The study argues continuing mobility & independence teaching to be available for blind children (and others who need it). This should start early in preschool and continue at least until the move into secondary school. It would be desirable to cover the bulk of the M&I curriculum in mainstream by the end of primary school. Children in special schools would progress more slowly and continue to work on this subject throughout their schooling.
The study illustrates some of the difficulties in delivering in-depth mobility education in mainstream schools where visual impairment is just one of a wide range of special individual needs. It shows the advantages of this work in schools and units dedicated to the visually impaired, particularly where a senior staff member is committed and able to promote and sustain an integrated approach.
Family perspectives have not been addressed directly, but it is acknowledged that close support is essential and some ways in which this may be done are outlined. The idea that a single mobility specialist can work equally effectively with all age and ability groups is questioned. It is suggested that some degree of specialism within mobility education would be desirable to enable individual specialists to link in closely to the work of the school. Mainstream and MDVI specialisms have been shown to be advantageous.
Lastly the study indicates the need for new training opportunities both to prepare specialists for this work, and to equip teachers, classroom assistants and others to play their part in the integrated approach.
About MISE
MISE (Mobility & Independence Specialists In Education) is a national support and development group for all mobility officers, education rehab officers, teachers and others - Including parents -who specialise in meeting the mobility and Independence needs of visually impaired children.
Mobility & Independence Education is concerned with all aspects of independence which may be adversely affected by impaired vision. It includes the understanding of indoor and outdoor environments and the art of safe travel on foot or using public transport as well as travel in a wheelchair. It also includes independent life skills ranging from self help such as dressing, meal-table, etc, to cookery, self presentation, social skills and recreation. It can also include curriculum support where visually impaired children are helped to playa full part in school activities such as PE, drama, and sports alongside their sighted peers.
MISE is one of the 16 curriculum groups which are represented on EACAP, the Examinations, Assessment, and Curriculum Advisory Panel of the RNIBNIEW Curriculum Structure. Its primary concern is the development and refinement of an agreed M&I curriculum, but its work also covers the following:-
The informal practitioner network
MISE maintains a register of specialists in mobility & independence education which is available from the secretary. MISE has divided the country into geographical areas. Each has an area representative who arranges area meetings and who offers or facilitates support for newly appointed specialists and others in the area.
Formal learning opportunities
MISE holds two national Day Conferences each year, usually at the beginning of March and October. These include keynote addresses, "poster sessions" (short presentations usually on practice), and small group work. The wide range of topics is selected by the members. Area groups also hold meetings on such topics.
Information exchange
Formal meetings are the main opportunity for exchanging information, but for those who can't attend, a detailed record of proceedings is circulated together with any appropriate supplementary information.
Publications
MISE encourages and supports those who are interested to write about policy and practice either in established journals or through MISE Occasional or Practice Papers.
Research
MISE aims to encourage, assist in and publicise research which provides a greater understanding of children's mobility & independence needs and ways to meet them.
Training Initiatives
MISE wishes to promote in-depth training for those who specialise in mobility & independence education by lobbying national bodies and training institutions, by supporting individual initiatives, and by developing quality practice placements. MISE also wishes to publicise M&I through contributions to training events and professional training courses.
Previous Section - Next Section