
Hampshire County Council
Children and Young People Select Committee	Item

3 October 2007 Scrutiny of Education Provision for Deaf and Hearing Impaired Children - Findings and draft recommendations of the Review Group Report of the Chairman of the Review Group

Contact : Emma Gordon, Tel 01962 847563, e.mail: Emma.gordon@hants.gov.uk

1. Summary

1.1 The report details the findings and recommendations of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired (HI) Review Group set up to consider the proposed options for the future pattern of provision for deaf and HI children.

2. Recommendations

The Review Group is advised by Children's Services officers that there are no significant revenue implications of selecting one model of provision over another. In view of this, the Review Group recommends that:

1) Given the lack of research supporting one model of provision over another and the differing preferences expressed by stakeholders for models of provision, Members of the Committee ask that the Executive Member decides not to proceed with the proposal to consolidate provision into three pyramids. If the Executive Member does decide to proceed, Members of the Committee would strongly recommend that the following specific issues are considered in further depth.

a. That the Executive Member reviews the consultation responses to current proposals and satisfies himself that, as far as possible, indications of parental preference regarding education provision for deaf and hearing impaired children in Hampshire have been taken into account in the proposed delivery model.

b. That the Executive Member reviews the proposed delivery model and satisfies himself that the schools earmarked to host resourced provision have been selected on the basis of them being best placed to develop high quality provision, equal or better than that in existing established units.

c. That examples of existing good practice in the delivery of deaf and hearing impaired education are identified and used to inform the development of the County's resourced units.

d. That the Executive Member notes - and acts upon as appropriate - any future research on outcomes for deaf and hearing impaired children regarding the impact of schooling later in life in areas such as employment and quality of life.

3) That the Executive Member considers the dossier submitted by Medstead School in making his decision on this matter.

4) That Children's Services officers are acknowledged for their detailed work on these proposals.

3. Background

3.1 On 15 December 2005, the Executive Member (with special responsibility for Education) authorised consultations on key issues relating to the provision of education for deaf and hearing impaired (HI) children. Subsequently, reports were published in October 2006 and February 2007 laying out the findings of the consultations, and seeking approval of proposed options for the future pattern of provision for deaf and HI children.

3.2 The Communication Policy: underpinning the proposals was a `Communication Policy', which was well-supported by most stakeholders. The Communication Policy aims to:

· achieve consistency in the advice provided by support services to parents and to staff working with deaf and HI children. It reflects the principle that parents should be fully involved in decisions affecting the communication modes which their child may use and be given information which enables them to participate fully in those decisions.

· recognise that there is a range of communication modes that may be appropriate for deaf and HI children. Some children may successfully develop and learn through a single communication mode (e.g. speaking and listening) whilst other children may require the support of more than one mode through their development and in future life.

This Communication Policy was accepted by Members, including the Children and Young People Select Committee.

3.3 The Strategy: the driver for future delivery of provision to deaf and HI children was outlined in an overarching `Strategy' which, again, was generally endorsed by stakeholders. The aims of this Strategy were to have resourced provisions which provide, as far as possible:

· provision which will be able to offer both auditory/oral and signed modes of communication;

· viability of numbers, to maintain security of staffing and, wherever possible, of pupil peer group;

· geographical spread and accessibility;

· continuity between primary and secondary linked schools;

· provision of outreach to children and young people in other schools and settings.

3.4 Proposals for delivery of provision: proposals for the countywide model of resourced provision met with a more mixed response from stakeholders. The key rationale behind the delivery proposals can be summarised as follows:

· Recognition of falling pupil numbers in resourced provision due to earlier diagnosis of deafness and hearing impairment, leading to earlier aiding and cochlear implantation.

· A professional view that it is preferable to have high pupil numbers in a few large resourced units than have small pupil groups in many smaller provisions (to ensure a peer group for children and greater access to a range of quality teaching staff).

· A prediction that more deaf and HI children will attend a local mainstream school in future (rather than one with resourced provision) as a result of the exercise of parental preference.

· Recognition of the importance of truly inclusive education which enables a better response to individual and changing needs.

· The need to improve access to resourced provision for children living throughout the County.

4. Purpose of the Review

4.1 Following consultations, the Children and Young People Select Committee was not satisfied that the proposals for delivery of resourced provision were appropriate to deliver the strategic objectives. The Committee therefore set up a Review Group which was tasked with seeking further evidence to determine whether the proposals would indeed achieve the objectives of the agreed Strategy for the delivery of this service.

5. Scope of the Review

5.1 The following broad areas were identified for investigation.

a) To identify the relative importance of providing linked nursery-primary to primary-secondary education provision for children with deafness or hearing impairment.

b) An examination of how quality of teaching for children with deafness or hearing impairment might be affected by current proposals.

6. Key lines of enquiry

6.1 The Review Group identified the following specific questions to be answered in the scope of this review:

1) What evidence is there to demonstrate the relative importance of nursery-primary links to primary-secondary links in education provision for deaf and hearing impaired children?

2) Focusing on profoundly deaf and seriously hearing impaired children only (approximately 200 children in Hampshire in both mainstream and resourced provision), what information is available to demonstrate:

a. How many children who are entitled to attend resourced provision choose not to.

b. The reasons why these children choose not to attend resourced provision.

c. The achievement of these children in mainstream school compared to their peers in resourced provision over the past 5 years (to include data on academic achievement as well as evidence of social, emotional and behavioural impact where possible)

d. The achievement of these children in mainstream school compared to hearing children in the same schools over the past 5 years (to include data on academic achievement as well as evidence of social, emotional and behavioural impact where possible)

e. Perceptions of the parents of these children as to whether their child achieves more in mainstream or resourced provision.

f. Evidence of the factors influencing these children and their parents in their choice of school.

3) What evidence do Hampshire's comparator authorities have in support of questions 1 and 2?

4) What is the difference in achievement between those children educated out-of-county and those in Hampshire resourced provision?

5) Why do pupils/parents choose out-of-county schools as opposed to Hampshire provision?

6) What are the precise differences between the job descriptions and roles of a Teacher of the Deaf and the Teacher Advisory Service?

7) What are the precise differences between the education provided by a Teacher of the Deaf and the Teacher Advisory Service?

7. Approach:

7.1 Given the extensive consultation already undertaken with key stakeholders and the importance of completing the review as soon as possible (so as to avoid any further uncertainty for the stakeholders affected by the Deaf and HI proposals), the Review Group decided to seek the expert view of Dr. Steve Powers, Senior Lecturer in Education and specialist in deaf education at the University of Birmingham. It was anticipated that the external expert would be able to provide details of relevant research and evidence (from the UK or elsewhere) and advise whether researching the necessary local data and information to answer the Review Group's questions would be likely to provide significant new evidence which would impact on the proposals for the strategic and operational delivery of effective education provision for deaf and hearing impaired children in Hampshire.

8. Key findings of the review

8.1 Dr. Powers' written evidence to the Review Group is attached at Annexe A. Specific answers to the key lines of enquiry in section 4 can be found at Annexe B.

8.2 On Oct 10 2006, the Children and Young People Select Committee endorsed the following recommendations to the Executive Member for Children's Services:

1. That the Communication Policy forms the basis for the County's strategic development of services and provision for deaf and HI children

2. That resourced provision for deaf and HI pupils is developed to provide a wide range of communication modes, including both auditory/oral and signed methodologies in all provisions

3. That the County Council's Children's Services Department continue to develop support services for pre-school children and their families, which provide access to comprehensive support and advice services for parents of deaf/HI children and provide communication support to those families in line with the Communication Policy

8.3 Overall, very little clear and unambiguous evidence exists to support one model of providing education for deaf and hearing impaired children over another. The research undertaken by Dr. Powers also drew no conclusions as to likely impact of researching local data and information in support of current proposals. However, several key observations and research findings emerged from the Review Group's investigations which were of particular interest to Members:

i. There is no conclusive research either way to show the relative importance of providing nursery-primary links compared with primary-secondary links. However, the usual issues associated with school `transition' apply to all children, whether deaf/hearing impaired or not. However, Dr. Powers' personal professional opinion professional opinion was that the importance of friendships was more marked at the primary - secondary transfer stage.

ii. Whilst there is no solid evidence to support the view, Dr. Powers has observed that the factors affecting parents' choice of school become more complex at secondary school level than at primary. At primary level, parents are more inclined to be satisfied with a local school; at secondary level a larger number of factors come into play. However, Dr. Powers' view was that the `pyramid' model of provision would allow for flexibility to meet a variety of needs and would support the maintenance of friendships.

iii. Parental preference is a key factor in choice of school placement, although little evidence exists to show the precise reasons parents choose one school over another. However, research into the perceived factors that most help and hinder deaf children achieving their potential (including feedback from parents and family members of deaf/HI children) showed that `staffing and resources' in school placements was the most important factor, with `educational placement' coming in at fifth place out of nine priorities cited. Parental preference is the overriding theme in certain pieces of research about placement: Dr. Powers referenced research by Marschark et al (2007) to illustrate this point: `Whether one likes it or not... placement decisions should be left to parents...we believe their preferences should trump those of educational administrators, legislators and social advocates'.

iv. Whilst the factors affecting parental preference are not clearly evidenced, the overall perception of the quality of a school is very important. Dr. Powers' view is that parents choose placements based on the school's ability to offer the pupil an opportunity to reach his or her potential. Dr. Powers highlighted the fact that key outcomes for deaf pupils are unreported - such as communication, language competency and personal and social aspects of development - which therefore does not permit parents to select schools based on anticipated outcomes in these fields. Academic excellence is not necessarily the overriding factor in judging quality.

v. A choice of a poor, failing or unpopular school (possibly indicated by falling pupil numbers or surplus places) would be best avoided when selecting schools to deliver resourced provision.

vi. Research evidence does not point to a preferred model for the delivery of education provision for deaf/HI children. Dr. Powers supported both the proposed `pyramid' model and the underlying Communication Strategy as being a desirable model for Hampshire.

vii. Dr. Powers put great emphasis on the importance of pupil peer-group size in resourced provision. The `pyramid' model would rationalise current provision, increase peer-group size and use resources more effectively. Dr. Powers stated that rationalising current provision was therefore essential in order to effectively deliver mixed-mode provision in Hampshire.

viii. There is currently no research into the longer-term outcomes for deaf/HI children in different educational settings. This gap in knowledge means that conclusions cannot be drawn favouring one type of educational setting over another in relation to outcomes later in life. There is current interest amongst academic circles in researching this area to assess aspects such as employability and quality of life for deaf/HI pupils later in life.

ix. High quality resourced provision takes a long time to embed. However, as long as provision is sited in a `good' school (see iv and v above), then it can easily develop and thrive.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB: the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

File : E3A2 (Volumes 1 and 2)

Annexe A

Written evidence from Dr. Steve Powers.

Hampshire Scrutiny of Educational Provision for Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Children

Report from Dr Stephen Powers, University of Birmingham

12^th September 2007

My Tasks

As an external consultant I was asked to:

(i) provide details of relevant research and evidence (from the UK or elsewhere); and

(ii) advise whether researching the local data (on Main Questions 1-3 below) is likely to provide significant new evidence which would impact on the current proposals

The Main Questions being asked concern:

1. Parents' and pupils' preferred options

2. Relative importance of nursery-primary and primary-secondary links

3. Attainment and achievement of deaf children

4. Specialist role of the teacher of the deaf

A further request asked for information on:

5. Pre-school intervention and its effectiveness

6. Process of inclusion

7. Development of sign bilingual approaches and assessment procedures

8. Implications of different language approaches

9. School college transition (particularly any lessons that might be applicable to pre-school/school and primary/secondary transitions).

Conclusions

Task (i)

It should not be a surprise that the search of the literature on these topics has failed to reveal clear and unambiguous evidence to support one approach, or one course of action, over another. Indeed, on some of the issues it was not possible to find any direct evidence at all. Nevertheless, there are some relevant research findings to consider, and these are mentioned below.

Task (ii)

The literature does not allow us any certain conclusion on the likely impact of researching local data. However, I regard this as a topic for discussion at our meeting on 17^th September.

1. Parents' and pupils' preferred options

1.1 Trends in placement

In Hampshire there has been a decline in the number of deaf pupils in schools with resource bases. Before we consider what factors are behind this change, it is important to know how this compares with national trends. Evidence is available from the BATOD surveys (Eatough, 1995; BATOD, 2007) and is presented here.

Numbers and distribution of deaf children in England by type of educational establishment

An analysis of BATOD (British Association of Teachers of the Deaf) Survey findings¹:

Survey Date Return Rates

1994 87% (estimated: services 82%, units 97%, schools for deaf children 95%)

1998 89% (services 77%, units 93%, schools for deaf children 93%)

2000 99% (services 97%, units 99%, schools for deaf children 100%)

2003 60% figures not reported below

Figures have been extrapolated according the return rates from the different types of establishment.

Deaf children in other special types of special schools are not included in these figures.

Extrapolated figures according to return rates from the different types of establishment

Table 1. Children with moderate to profound hearing loss in Reception to Year 13 classes²

(i) Numbers

	1994	1998	2000
Special schools for deaf children	1,981	1,919	1,823
Units (resourced based provision)	2,676	3,117	3,129
Mainstream schools without RB	5,879	5,952	6,440
TOTAL	10,536	10,988	11,392

(ii) Relative distribution

	1994	1998	2000
Special schools for deaf children	19%	17%	16%
Units (resourced based provision)	25%	28%	27%
Mainstream schools without RB	56%	54%	57%

Table 2. Children with severe to profound hearing loss in Reception to Year 13 classes

	1994	1998	2000
Special schools for deaf children	33%	31%	33%
Units (resourced based provision)	36%	39%	42%
Mainstream schools without RB	31%	30%	25%

Table 3. Children with profound hearing loss in Reception to Year 13 classes

	1994	1998	2000
Special schools for deaf children	50%	44%	44%
Units (resourced based provision)	35%	43%	42%
Mainstream schools without RB	15%	13%	14%

Conclusions:

According to these figures, between 1994 and 2000 there was:

i. an increase in the total number of moderately to profoundly deaf pupils in English schools

ii. a decline in the number of pupils in special schools and an increase in the number in schools with resource bases and other mainstream schools

iii. a slight fall in the proportion of pupils in special schools and a slight increase in the proportion in schools with resource bases

iv. almost no change in the proportion of pupils in mainstream schools without resource bases

v. for pupils with severe to profound deafness, a move away from mainstream schools to schools with resource bases

vi. for profoundly deaf pupils, a move away from special schools to schools with resource bases.

The fact that we do not have more recent national data is a major gap in our knowledge. Reports from cochlear implant programmes suggest that this new technology is having a significant influence on placement decisions (Watson et al, 2006).

1.2 Factors that influence parents' preferred options

Some in Hampshire are concerned that there is insufficient information on why parents and pupils choose to attend certain schools.

I could find no direct evidence on this issue. However, in one study questionnaires were used to seek views on the factors that most help and most hinder deaf children achieve their potential - therefore indirectly tapping into factors behind the preferred options (Gregory et al, 2000). There were 493 respondents including 271 parents and family members. Nine main factors emerged. For parents `educational placement' was their fifth most important factor with 40% of parents commenting on this in either a positive or negative way (`staffing and resources' was the most mentioned factor, by 56% of parents).

On educational placement, `Many of the comments were linked to comments on different modes of communication, since choices on these two topics are often interconnected. For example, it was noted that the choice of, or need for, sign language may necessitate acceptance of a placement in a school for deaf pupils and possibly even residential education. At the same time, a wide range of opinions were expressed about where an auditory-oral approach is best provided - in the local mainstream school or at a special school for deaf pupils. ... Parents often found they needed to balance conflicting interests and that the best approach to the education of their children was only provided at a distance, which could have disadvantages.

`Parents and some ex-pupils wrote of their experience of good practice in unit or resource based provision. There were no negative comments about units.

`Many respondents who mentioned educational placement commented negatively on LEA policies and practices. These comments came especially from parents and, in particular, parents whose children had moved to a school for deaf pupils.

`It was significant that a number of criticisms were not of the actual decisions on educational placement that had been made, but of the fact that the selected placement was under-resourced.... The major area of concern, however, was the way in which decisions concerning placement were made, and the feeling that often children were fitted into what was available.'

1.3 Different views on desirable outcomes

One factor that clearly influences parents' preferred options is the different views they have on the desirable outcomes of deaf education. The sources below illustrate this.

Powers et al (1999, p25ff) The Review of Good Practice in Deaf Education

`Within deaf education the notion of good practice is a contested category. ... there is no clear consensus on how it is characterised .... Common objectives [concern] levels of educational attainment, social responsibility, employment and citizenship ... the right to a language, literacy skills and means of effective communication, together with the ability to find a place in society, but [people] differ in how they interpret these aims and in how they believe they can be achieved...

`Obvious points of difference which emerge concern choice of language or communication mode and educational placement ....alternative pedagogical practices derive from different philosophies. [There are differences in] conception of the purposes and necessary outcomes of deaf education which in turn relate to more fundamental conceptions of what deafness is and what being deaf means.'

Powers (2006) Learning from Success: High Achieving Deaf Pupils

One parent said in interview, `When Harry was diagnosed just before he was two the consultant said that we had to go and learn sign language because he'd never talk, he was too profoundly deaf. And I didn't accept that at all. I thought only old people were deaf, I didn't know anybody deaf, and I just said to my husband, "What can we do?" And he went out and looked up in the library and on the internet anything to do with the deaf, and we came up with NAG, the National Aural Group as it was, DELTA now, and just rang them. That was the start really of the hard work. DELTA gave us the confidence that we could teach him to talk. (Harry's mother)

Another parent said, `We were very clear from an early age that irrespective of how his language developed, that sign language would be important, so he could access his peer group, his culture. And I have to say that generally we were steered against that and told that Alex would talk.' (Alex's father)

1.4 Evidence from one study: Li et al (2003)

Early intervention decisions for a deaf orhard of hearing child are difficult to make, partly becauseof the lack of definitive proof of the superiority of any particularcommunication approach.... Eighty-three parents were surveyed about decisionfactors that may have affected their choice of communicationmodality. The child's extent of hearing loss was the mostinfluential decision factor (P<.001). Technologythat aims at improving the child's ability to speak (eg, cochlearimplants) had no significant impact on the decision to chooseoral only training.

1.5 The preferences of deaf pupils

There is almost no evidence on the views of deaf pupils regarding preferences for type of school. The RNID report What Deaf Pupils Think (RNID, 2002) does report on how pupils in schools with resource bases view the RB in relation to their social life. In fact there are mixed views - some see the unit as a place to relax and where communication is easier, whilst others think that the presence of the RB makes them more visible and can isolate them from hearing pupils.

2. Relative importance of nursery-primary and primary-secondary links

The importance of preschool-primary links is argued strongly by two primary schools in Hampshire. But the LA argues that many parents want preschool provision close to home (so in most cases not attached to a primary school with a resource base) - therefore support should be available there.

The literature revealed no evidence on this issue. Two relevant observations are presented here.

2.1 The primary-secondary transfer problem

Problems over primary-secondary transfer are well known and widely reported (eg. NLT, 2007), but these concern lack of academic progress and falling motivation, usually explained in terms of lack of academic data provided by primary schools, failure to build on progress, and different teaching styles. Friendship patterns are not reported as a factor.

2.2 One study: RNID (2002) Inclusion: What Deaf Pupils Think

In these interviews with 11-14 year old deaf pupils in mainstream schools friendship is what the pupils talked about most. Friendships choices of deaf pupils in mainstream schools seem very individual. Some prefer hearing friends others prefer deaf friends. Communication is not surprisingly a main factor in the choices pupils make.

Friendship perhaps is more of a worry for older deaf pupils than younger ones.

3. Attainment and achievement of deaf children

3.1 An overview

Powers (2007) The Educational Attainments of Deaf Pupils

This article is on the BATOD website (also see extracts in Appendix 1). It is presented here as being relevant to the monitoring and review of provision. Some key summary points are:

1. There continues to be very limited useful data on the educational attainments of deaf pupils.

2. Government data based on Contextual Value Added measures is now provided to schools and local authorities through RAISEonline (having replaced PANDA and PAT). However, there is no evidence that educators of deaf children are finding this data useful in self evaluation or in setting individual pupil targets. Key problems concern small cohort sizes and deaf pupils not matching the wider school population in relative rates of progress at different key stages.

3. Government VA measures refer only to a narrow range of academic subjects. Some of the key outcomes for deaf pupils are unreported - for example, outcomes concerning communication and language competences, and personal and social aspects of development.

4. Schools and services use their own data for self evaluation and to set pupil targets.

3.2 Deaf pupils attainments compared to hearing pupils

GCSE examination results of moderately to profoundly deaf pupils in mainstream schools (including units) in England (1995, n = 344; 1996, n = 403)

Achieving

5 or more

A-C grades

1995 1996

% %

Achieving

5 or more

A-G grades

1995 1996

% %

Study sample of deaf students

14 18

70 75

England average (all schools) a

44 45

86 86

Source: Powers, 2000

This is now old data but this research has not been repeated.

3.3 Government data (but comes with warning)

NPD data reports: 2005-06 Key Stage 4 GCSE results

Pupils with hearing-impairment as their primary SEN; school action plus and statemented pupils only:

29% achieved 5 or more A*-C grades

70% achieved 5 A*-G grades

These figures are for pupils across all educational establishments and therefore are difficult to compare with Powers' findings from 1995 and 1996 for pupils in mainstream schools. Also, the DCSF issues this data with a warning about the limitations of its reliability and validity. However, even given these caveats the figures do appear to indicate a significant improvement in GCSE scores for deaf pupils. It will remain to further analysis to determine the accuracy of NPD data.

3.4 Achievement by type of specialist provision

3.41 From Powers (2000)

(i) 1995 (N = 338)

	Pupils achieving 5 or more A-C grades %	Pupils achieving 5 or more A-G grades %
Individual placement	21	75
Unit/resource base	9	66
	p<.01	ns

(ii) 1996 (N = 374)

	Pupils achieving 5 or more A-C grades %	Pupils achieving 5 or more A-G grades %
Individual placement	28	79
Unit/resource base	10	72
	p<.001	ns

This shows in both years pupils individually placed did better than pupils in units. This effect was significant on 5 A to C grades but not on 5 A to G grades. This cannot be taken as evidence of relative effectiveness of different types of programme because of confounding factors concerning the different types of population in the two types of provision.

3.42 Powers et al (1998)

`A number of studies have linked mainstream placement with higher achievement but many of these studies have not accounted for the background confounding factors' (p120.

3.43 Karchmer and Mitchell (2003)

`Reading comprehension of deaf and hard of hearing students is six grade equivalents lower than their hearing peers at age 15 [ie. reading at the level of a nine year old]... Individual differences account for 95% of the variance in pupil performance - type of placement accounts for very little.'

3.44 Ofsted (2006)

`There was no agreement about what constituted good progress for pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD). This prevented vital analysis of data at all levels. Schools rarely questioned themselves as rigorously about the rate of progress for LDD pupils as they did for pupils who did not have LDD; LAs were unable to make secure judgements about the effectiveness of different schools; and national trends were difficult to determine.' [Also] `... the survey found minimal analysis of the effectiveness of different types of provision. LAs had rarely rigorously determined which provision provided the best outcomes for pupils with different types of need.

`Most schools provided good quality education in one or more aspects of learning, but pupils had the best chance of making good progress in resourced mainstream schools. In no case did the additional resourced provision detract from the provision for all pupils. A greater proportion of this provision was outstanding and it was seldom inadequate.'

3.45 Marschark et al (2007)

`No-one has yet examined the relation between the school placement and long-term effects on social-emotional functioning or employment. For this reason if for no other, `Whether one likes it or not... placement decisions should be left to parents...we believe their preferences should trump those of educational administrators, legislators and social advocates' (p57).

4. Specialist role of the teacher of the deaf

Eatough (2000)

BATOD survey in 1998 showed that only a very small number of teachers supporting deaf pupils in mainstream schools do not have the specialist qualification.

4.1 Evidence of impact

Only three relevant reports were found.

4.11 Hopwood, Gallaway (1999)

The authors taped and analysed the language interaction between Sam and different adults (teacher of the deaf, teaching assistant, class teacher) in different situations. The authors found that only in the support situation with the ToD was the language interaction successful. Only the ToD appeared to both understand Sam's linguistic level and have the time to give him the individual attention he needed.

4.12 Mayer et al (2002, cited in Singleton, Morgan, 2006, p355)

From their research they concluded that `sign proficiency alone does not result in teaching effectiveness'. This counters the notion sometimes promoted that training in communication skills alone can substitute for the skills of a ToD.

4.13 Ofsted (2006)

`Pupils who worked with specialist teachers made greater academic progress than when they had to rely on other types of support, including teaching assistants. Specialist teachers gave a high level of skilled support, both academically and socially to individual pupils. They also liaised closely with other professionals and parents, and carefully monitored the work of teaching assistants.'

5. Pre-sch intervention and its effectiveness

There seems to be clear evidence on this now, for example:

5.1 One study: Sass-Lehrer and Bodner-Johnson (2003, p76-7)

`A child's best chances for achieving proficiency in communication, language and literacy are related to early identification of hearing and enrolment in a comprehensive early education program by 6 months' ...'research in early intervention has moved beyond the question of whether early intervention is effective and feasible [it is] and is now aiming to understand what works best, for whom, under what conditions, and to what outcome'.

6. Process of inclusion

Much is written about inclusion, including the inclusion of deaf pupils. Questions about effectiveness are covered in section 3 above.

The interested reader is referred to the chapter in the Review of Good Practice in Deaf Education on supporting deaf pupils in mainstream schools (Powers et al, 1999) - this deals more with different models and strategies. A copy can be provided if necessary, but I do not think it is relevant to include it here.

7. Development of sign bilingual approaches and assessment procedures

Appendix 2 provides extracts from a recently updated document on the policy and practice of sign-bilingual education in the UK - specifically on research and assessment procedures. This is from the draft version and appears with kind permission on Dr Ruth Swanwick, one of the authors. The final version is now available (from Forest Books).

8. Implications of different language approaches

8.1 DfEE Literature Review on the Achievements of Deaf Children (Powers et al, 1998)

On the factor of language and communication approaches as an influencing factor:

No clear evidence to favour one approach over another.

`Summary and conclusion

· The few studies we have of high achieving deaf pupils have concerned pupils in oral programmes but in no case are we sure that the pupils were representative of the whole population.

· One problem has been that many of the studies have looked at just one approach without reference to others.

· Other problems in research on this topic have been the lack of clarity over terminology, the difficulty in gathering accurate information and the fact that sign bilingual programmes in the UK are relatively recent and still relatively few.

· In order to identify effective practice it might be better to focus research on individual schools rather than types of schools, and consider process as well as achievement.'

8.2 One study: Yoshinga-Itano (2003, p323)

The importance of the early development of language, irrespective of spoken or signed.

`Expressive language development (even if expressed through signs) and degree of hearing loss play a major role in predicting spoken language outcome for children with hearing loss... two categories of hearing loss are pertinent, those with mild through severe hearing loss and those with profound hearing loss. Profound hearing loss with conventional amplification results in greatly decreased potential for spoken language development in the first 5 years. However, early identified profound hearing loss with early cochlear implantation and a high quality auditory stimulation program results in expectations that are similar to those for early identified mild-to-severe hearing loss and the use of conventional amplification.'

Y-I also reports case studies of three children who had good sign vocabularies but no spoken language before implantation, who then appeared to `fast map' their speech production on to their sign vocabulary. Near CA appropriate spoken vocabulary was acquired within 12-14 months after implantation. (p324).

8.3 Longer term outcomes

As yet we have no research evidence on the long term outcomes of different communication approaches. As Marschark and Spencer (2003) argue, `the full benefits of acquisition of a natural sign language remain to be seen by future research'.

9. School-college transition

There is a limited but useful literature on the transition from school to further/higher education, training and employment of deaf young people, however, I have found nothing that can aid our understanding of primary-secondary transfer.

APPENDIX 1

THE EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTS OF DEAF PUPILS:

A DISCUSSION PAPER ON DATA CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

EXTRACTS from article on BATOD website [Sept 2007]

Stephen Powers

The aim of this short discussion paper is to promote discussion about government data on pupil attainment now available to schools and local authorities. Therefore it is limited in scope. It follows discussions with a number of people struggling to make sense of the data on deaf pupils.

The information here has been gathered mainly from government websites and relevant literature. Also, opinions have been sought from a small number of heads of services and schools (through convenience sampling). Much of the wording on CVA, PAT and RAISEonline is taken directly from government websites.

ATTAINMENT DATA CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

1. School performance tables (DfES) - now known as Achievement and Attainment Tables	SATs (all key stages) GCSEs A Levels NVQs Value added scores	By school and local authority Data available on special schools - but no data at individual pupil level
2. Government data (PLASC, PANDA, PAT, RAISEonline, Contextual Value Added measures)		By individual pupil Many factors measured In PLASC deaf children identified through `hearing impairment' as primary or secondary type of SEN Expectations of progress based on hearing school population
3. Research reports: i. Powers, 1995, 1996 iii. Achievements of Deaf Pupils in Scotland, 2003 ii. University of Durham, 2004	GCSE results of deaf pupils in mainstream schools in England	By individual pupil; reasonably good return rate Scotland only; incomplete data; project now ended Incomplete data on attainment
4. PIPS, MidYIS, YELLIS monitoring systems, Curriculum, Evaluation and Management Centre (CEM), University of Durham	Value added data for school self evaluation and monitoring pupil progress	Reports that it is expensive. No information on how widely used by teachers of the deaf.
5. BATOD Survey		Has collected data on attainment but this has never been reported because of low return rates

SOME COMMENTS FROM HEADS OF SCHOOLS AND SERVICES

Head of Service

They use government SAT scores and national examination data, and supplement this with their own annual/bi-annual assessments of language and literacy. P levels are used with children and young people with deafness/hearing impairment and additional difficulties.

They collect SAT/GCSE data every year on every child/young person at each key stage, and have this going back several years. Therefore, they are able to identify levels in their own area for deaf/hearing impaired children and young people (with no additional needs) at different key stages; and to identify patterns and trends. They compare individual pupil results with the school's average, the local authority's average, and the national average.

They can relate findings to the effect of individual schools - for example some pupils who do not achieve expected outcomes might be in a school with a `hostile environment'; but in these cases the deaf/hearing impaired children and young people often do better than their hearing peers and siblings.

They can also relate the findings to the effect of different teachers of the deaf who are supporting - the head of service acknowledges this can be seen as a threat.

Overall they find that outcomes at key stages 1 are very good, there is a dip at key stage 2, but by key stage 4 results go up again to at least national and local averages.

The `acid test' is whether deaf/hearing impaired children and young people (with no additional difficulties) are functioning at national target levels or above.

Head of Special School for Deaf Pupils

The head was delighted when the school was reported to be in the top 5% of schools in the country on VA measures. But previously it was in the bottom 40%!

A number of factors influence the VA score for the school - essentially related to the nature and size of each KS cohort. For example, signing children might have a fairly good KS1 assessment, but with the greater English language demands in the KS2 assessment they score poorly in the KS2 tests - they can't demonstrate what they are able to do. Linguistics of tests is a problem.

In summary this headteacher thinks the government's VA scores are of limited or perhaps no use to the school. Rather they use their own assessments (eg. reading, BPVS, TROG) and plot progress for each individual pupil across the years.

Head of Special School for Deaf Pupils

He thinks the government data is of no use at all. It is impossible for the school to benchmark with other special schools because the populations are so different. Also, the school's population varies so much from year to year.

The school `ploughs its own furrow' and for the last several years has set its own individual pupil targets for every subject.

SUMMARY

5. There continues to be very limited useful data on the educational attainments of deaf pupils.

6. Government Achievement and Attainment Tables report school level data on special schools for deaf pupils, which provides aggregate data for this population. However, these tables tell us nothing about the attainments of deaf pupils in mainstream schools.

7. There is research data on the GCSE results of deaf pupils in mainstream school in 1995 and 1996.

8. The BATOD Survey has collected data on attainment but has not reported this because of low return rates. However, BATOD is reviewing its approach and hopes to collect attainment data in the future against a range of well known influencing factors for deaf pupils.

9. Government PLASC data, collected since 2002, on the Key Stage 2 and Key Stage attainments of deaf pupils has been reported through Hansard, but unofficial reports question the accuracy of this information. (www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60418w15.htm)

10. PLASC data has not been reported elsewhere. In theory, it should be able to provide aggregate data on end of Key Stage attainments of pupils with `hearing impairment' as their primary type of special educational need - although the data seems difficult to obtain. However, one problem is that this data does not differentiate pupils with different levels of hearing loss (or by other important factors).

11. Government data based on Contextual Value Added measures is now provided to schools and local authorities through RAISEonline (having replaced PANDA and PAT). However, there is no evidence that educators of deaf children are finding this data useful in self evaluation or in setting individual pupil targets. Key problems concern small cohort sizes and deaf pupils not matching the wider school population in relative rates of progress at different key stages.

12. Schools and services use their own data for self evaluation and to set pupil targets.

13. CVA data omits the effect of key factors for deaf pupils, eg. age at onset, additional needs, hearing status of the parents. Also, a key problem is the uncertainty over which pupils are included in the category of `hearing impairment as the primary special need'. Nevertheless, the CVA data might still be useful to educators of deaf children, and this should be explored. The data will probably be more useful at pupil level rather than school level given that (i) most deaf pupils are in mainstream schools and (ii) even special schools have small cohorts at each key stage.

14. Government VA measures refer only to a narrow range of academic subjects. Some of the key outcomes for deaf pupils are unreported - for example, outcomes concerning communication and language competences, and personal and social aspects of development.

APPENDIX 2

Sign Bilingual Education: Policy and Practice

Ruth Swanwick and Susan Gregory

January 2007 DRAFT

Contents

Introduction: Sign Bilingual Education: Definition, Philosophy and Policy

Section 1 The context of the document

Section 2 Policy into practice

Section 3 Sign bilingual education in the UK

Section 4 UK research into sign language and deaf education 1996-2006

Section 5 International perspectives on sign bilingual education

Appendix Concepts in sign bilingual education

Summary of responses to key lines of enquiry

1) What evidence is there to demonstrate the relative importance of nursery-primary links to primary-secondary links in education provision for deaf and hearing impaired children?

There is no conclusive evidence to answer this question. However, the personal professional view of the Review Group's expert witness is that the primary-secondary link is of greater relative importance.

a. How many children who are entitled to attend resourced provision choose not to.

Information from Children's Services show that approximately 45 children who have statements of special educational need and are attending mainstream school would be likely to have met the criteria for placement in resourced provision.

b. The reasons why these children choose not to attend resourced provision.

There is no direct evidence available on this issue. However, evidence from the expert witness shows that various factors may affect a pupil's choice of placement including: the exercise of parental choice (various factors can affect this - see questions 2e and f); negative views amongst parents of local education authorities' policies and practice; adequacy of staffing and resources.

Refer to achievement data submitted by Children's Services at Annexe C. Data on social, emotional and behavioural development is only recorded for Foundation Stage children and is therefore not available for the children to which this data relates. Evidence from the expert witness to the Review shows that key problems arise from small cohort sizes and deaf pupils not matching the wider school population in assessing relative rates of progress at different key stages.

Refer to achievement data submitted by Children's Services at Annexe C.

e. Perceptions of the parents of these children as to whether their child achieves more in mainstream or resourced provision.

Evidence from the expert witness suggests that perceptions vary depending on the parent's view on the desirable outcomes of deaf education.

f. Evidence of the factors influencing these children and their parents in their choice of school.

The exercise of parental choice is seen as a key factor in the selection of a suitable school although little evidence exists to show the precise reasons why parents choose one school over another. However, research into the perceived factors that most help and hinder deaf children achieving their potential (including feedback from parents and family members of deaf/HI children) showed that `staffing and resources' in school placements was the most important factor, with `educational placement' coming in at fifth place out of nine priorities cited.

Whilst the factors affecting parental preference are not clearly evidenced, the overall perception of the quality of a school is very important. The view of the expert witness is that parents choose placements based on the school's ability to offer the pupil an opportunity to reach his or her full potential - not necessarily based on pure academic factors, but also friendship, emotional and social wellbeing.

3) What evidence do Hampshire's comparator authorities have in support of questions 1 and 2?

Links to comparator authority information were provided by Children's Services. However, the information was of questionable use in answering the Review Group's questions as, for the same reasons as Hampshire, the specific information requested by the Review Group is not recorded routinely in other counties.

4) What is the difference in achievement between those children educated out-of-county and those in Hampshire resourced provision?

Answering this question represents a substantial research task for Children's Services which was not possible to investigate within the Review's timescales. The reservations noted by Dr Powers in 2 c above should also be taken into account in considering the potential value of this data.

5) Why do pupils/parents choose out-of-county schools as opposed to Hampshire provision?

Refer to questions 2e and f.

6) What are the precise differences between the job descriptions and roles of a Teacher of the Deaf and the Teacher Advisory Service?

Job descriptions from Children's Services attached at Annexe D.

7) What are the precise differences between the education provided by a Teacher of the Deaf and the Teacher Advisory Service?

Refer to job descriptions at Annexe D.

Annexe C

Achievement Data for Deaf/HI children


Five Year Summary of KS1 Results for Current HI Pupils

Year	Mainstream?	Number of pupils	Read % 2+/2B+	Write % 2+/2B+	Speak and Listen % 2+	Maths % 2+/2B+	Sci % 2+
2001-2002	Mainstream	4	100.0	50.0	75.0	100.0	75.0
2001-2002	Special	1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0
2001-2002	Unit	6	66.7	33.3	33.3	66.7	33.3
2001-2002	Hampshire	14282	86.9	89.3	N/A	92.1	92.6
2002-2003	Mainstream	7	57.1	28.6	42.9	57.1	85.7
2002-2003	Special	2	0.0	0.0	0.0	50.0	50.0
2002-2003	Unit	4	25.0	25.0	50.0	50.0	50.0
2002-2003	Hampshire	14101	86.4	84.5	N/A	92.0	92.9
2003-2004	Mainstream	7	71.4	42.9	57.1	100.0	85.7
2003-2004	Special
2003-2004	Unit	2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
2003-2004	Hampshire	14262	86.8	84.6	N/A	92.9	93.4
2004-2005	Mainstream	10	70.0	30.0	100.0	50.0	100.0
2004-2005	Special	1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
2004-2005	Unit	2	50.0	50.0	50.0	50.0	50.0
2004-2005	Hampshire	13941	75.4	64.4	91.8	77.5	93.8
2005-2006	Mainstream	2	50.0	0.0	50.0	50.0	50.0
2005-2006	Special
2005-2006	Unit	3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	66.7
2005-2006	Hampshire	14062	73.4	61.7	90.8	75.5	93.2

Notes:
Analysis is based on the type of school currently attended by the pupils.
Level 2 was split into 2C, 2B and 2A from 04/05 onwards for Reading, Writing and Maths.
Pupils with results of D - disapplied, W - working towards Level 1 and U - unable (equivalent of D/W for Science) are included when calculating percentages.


Five Year Summary of KS2 Results for Current HI Pupils

Year	Mainstream?	Number of pupils	Eng %4+	Maths %4+	Sci %4+
2001-2002	Mainstream	3	100.0	33.3	100.0
2001-2002	Special	3	33.3	33.3	33.3
2001-2002	Unit	4	50.0	75.0	75.0
2001-2002	Hampshire	15090	77.8	75.1	88.9
2002-2003	Mainstream	14	42.9	57.1	71.4
2002-2003	Special
2002-2003	Unit	5	0.0	0.0	40.0
2002-2003	Hampshire	15007	77.8	74.4	90.0
2003-2004	Mainstream	5	20.0	20.0	60.0
2003-2004	Special	3	0.0	33.3	33.3
2003-2004	Unit	4	25.0	0.0	25.0
2003-2004	Hampshire	14515	79.8	75.9	89.2
2004-2005	Mainstream	6	66.7	50.0	66.7
2004-2005	Special	2	0.0	100.0	50.0
2004-2005	Unit	6	33.3	33.3	33.3
2004-2005	Hampshire	14695	81.7	78.1	90.1
2005-2006	Mainstream	3	100.0	66.7	100.0
2005-2006	Special	3	0.0	33.3	66.7
2005-2006	Unit	5	60.0	40.0	40.0
2005-2006	Hampshire	14339	81.1	76.8	89.7

Notes:
Analysis is based on the type of school currently attended by the pupils.
Pupils with results of A - absent, B - working below the level of the test, D - disapplied and N - not awarded a test level are included when calculating percentages.


Five Year Summary of KS3 Results for Current HI Pupils

Year	Mainstream?	Number of pupils	Read %5+	Read %6+	Write %5+	Write %6+	Eng %5+	Eng %6+	Maths %5+	Maths %6+	Sci %5+	Sci %6+
2001-2002	Mainstream
2001-2002	Special
2001-2002	Unit
2001-2002	Hampshire	14372	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	71.6	36.4	72.2	50.9	72.9	39.3
2002-2003	Mainstream
2002-2003	Special	1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
2002-2003	Unit
2002-2003	Hampshire	14542	73.8	36.8	70.8	38.3	73.9	37.2	75.6	54.7	75.5	46.5
2003-2004	Mainstream
2003-2004	Special	1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
2003-2004	Unit
2003-2004	Hampshire	14966	70.1	35.0	76.7	38.6	74.8	35.7	77.4	56.8	71.6	38.5
2004-2005	Mainstream	3	66.7	0.0	100.0	33.3	100.0	0.0	66.7	66.7	66.7	33.3
2004-2005	Special	3	33.3	33.3	66.7	33.3	33.3	33.3	33.3	33.3	33.3	33.3
2004-2005	Unit	4	50.0	0.0	75.0	0.0	75.0	0.0	75.0	75.0	75.0	50.0
2004-2005	Hampshire	14571	72.6	36.2	78.9	39.3	77.3	37.8	77.8	58.0	75.7	41.9
2005-2006	Mainstream	15	60.0	33.3	66.7	33.3	60.0	33.3	73.3	60.0	60.0	26.7
2005-2006	Special
2005-2006	Unit	5	0.0	0.0	40.0	0.0	20.0	0.0	20.0	0.0	20.0	0.0
2005-2006	Hampshire	14522	71.4	35.5	80.7	40.2	77.4	37.9	80.3	61.7	77.3	46.8

Notes:
Analysis is based on the type of school currently attended by the pupils.
Pupils with results of A - absent, B - working below the level of the test and N - not awarded a test level are included when calculating percentages.

Deaf and HI Resourced Provision : GCSE Results

Year	No of pupils	*% achieving at least 5 A- C grades**	*% achieving at least 5 A - G grades**	*Hampshire Average A - C**	Hampshire Average *A - G including English and Maths**
2003	6	67%	100%	58%	93%
2004	2	0%	100%	60%	93%
2005	10	50%	100%	62%	93%
2006	5	20%	100%	63%	94%
Total	23	43%	100%

Annexe Di

WALLISDEAN JUNIOR SCHOOL

Job description for the Teacher in Charge of the Hearing-Impaired Unit

(to be read in conjunction with Job Description for `Teacher of the Deaf - HIU')

The teacher in charge will:

Management of staff

· lead and manage the Unit team (up to 9 members)

· monitor and evaluate provision for HI children, and plan support where needed

· draw up Unit timetable and effectively deploy all Unit staff

· lead weekly Unit staff meeting

· be involved in the appointment of staff in conjunction with the Headteacher

Management of pupils

· manage teaching and learning of HI pupils to ensure progress

· ensure that individual needs of each child are targeted and met

· regularly assess pupils' progress in speech, language and listening

· maintain an overview of all unit childrens' records

Policy

· promote all opportunities for inclusion within mainstream classes, and for reverse

integration within the Unit

· promote natural aural/oral policy, and policy of inclusion within both schools

· maintain and update policies and literature relating to HIU

· annually formulate, carry out and review an Action Plan for the HIU

Training

· appraise colleagues and support staff

· provide INSET to mainstream staff, Unit staff, classroom assistants, lunchtime supervisory

assistants and office staff

· keep abreast of current research, developments and material relating to teaching of H.I., and

disseminate where necessary

· promote deaf awareness in all pupils and staff within both schools

Liaison

· liaise with Headteachers of both Infant and Junior schools

· report weekly to Headteacher all matters relating to the Unit via a Liaison Book

· attend weekly staff meetings

· liaise with outside agencies - Speech and Language Therapist, Audiologists, Educational

Psychologists, members of Cochlea Implant Teams, etc.

· maintain effective liaison with parents through termly review of IEP targets/Annual Reviews/

home-school book

· liaise at pre-school and Year 6 levels to ensure children's smooth transition between phases

· report termly to the Governors SEN Sub-Committee on relevant Unit issues and to review

Action Plan

Administration

· ensure hearing aids, implants, and radio aid systems, are functioning at optimum levels at all

times, and arrange repairs

· be responsible for ordering of resources - audiological and other

· manage administration of Annual Reviews

Annexe Dii

Post Specialist Teacher Adviser

Grade MPG/UPS TLR 2.3

Line manager Professional Manager

Branch Children and Families Branch

Job description

Role Purpose

The Specialist Teacher Advisory Service promotes the inclusion, empowerment and raising of achievement of children with sensory and/or a physical impairment.

The Service supports these children by working with families and staff at a range of educational establishments including Early Years settings, schools and colleges.

The Service is committed to building on the existing good working practice of teachers and other professionals by developing knowledge and understanding as well as encouraging challenge within schools.

Specialist Teacher Advisers strive to ensure that children with sensory and/or physical impairment are able to access the curriculum and enabled to reach their full potential. We provide advice, consultancy, mentoring and modelling regarding strategies and programmes for individual children, modified equipment, appropriate building adaptations.

The Service also contributes to the development and implementation of policy within the LEA with the aim that children with sensory and/or physical impairment should "Be Healthy, Stay Safe, Enjoy and Achieve, Make a Positive Contribution and Achieve Economic Well-Being" in line with the recommendations in the 2004 Education Act.

Key responsibilities and functions

1. Accountability for leading, managing and developing the provision for children with a sensory or physical impairment in the school.

Facilitate and develop effective working relationships to support educational establishments and families in the education of children with a sensory and/or physical impairment.

· Provide support and advice to enable pre-schools, schools and colleges to manage the effective education of children with a sensory and/or physical impairment.

· Contribute to Annual Reviews of children with a sensory and/or physical impairment as appropriate.

· Provide advice to schools and parents/carers in relation to individual learning needs informed by a "whole child" holistic perspective.

· Work in partnership with parents and carers.

· Liase with statutory and voluntary bodies as appropriate regarding children with a sensory and/or physical impairment.

· Co-operate with the work of the Parent Partnership Officer to seek efficient and fair resolution of conflict between parents, schools and other officers of the LEA.

Provide advice to LEA officers on the effective education of children with a sensory and/or physical impairment consistent with the principles of the County Council's Inclusion Policy.

· Provide high quality advice on the needs of children with a sensory and/or physical impairment undergoing statutory assessment.

· Support LEA officers at Tribunal or in court when it is professionally appropriate to do so.

· Provide advice to LEA officers regarding building design and modification in order to progress towards effective inclusive education.

· Provide advice to LEA officers on the effectiveness of provision in both the maintained and non-maintained sector.

2. Impact on the educational progress of children with a sensory and/or physical impairment in the classroom

Manage curriculum access for children with a sensory and/or physical impairment and through monitoring, intervention and evaluation ensure that they are suitably challenged to maximise learning.

· Assess individual needs and identify challenges in partnership with the staff of educational institutions to maximise learning.

· Monitor and evaluate the implementation of agreed strategies.

3. Leading, developing and enhancing the teaching and support practices

Contribute to the development and implementation of policies within the Service, LEA, Schools, Pre-schools, Post 16+, Parents / Carers and children.

· Take part in discussions about formulation, implementation and review of the Service Development Plan.

· Give advice to LEA officers in formulating and reviewing education policies within the County.

Responsible for leading and developing training for education personnel and carers, in relation to the needs of children with a sensory and/or physical impairment.

4. Managing Resources

Ensure effective use of resources by maintaining a database of equipment for use in relation to children with a sensory and/or physical impairment.

· Give technical advice regarding the use of specialist equipment and any modifications to the physical environment that may be necessary for students with a sensory and/or physical impairment.

· Manage resources and maintain the Service database of equipment.

· Provide advice and training in the use of specialist equipment for children with a sensory and/or physical impairment.

Manage and prioritise an assigned caseload in educational settings and family homes.

· Plan visits to children and young people with sensory and physical impairments, according to their needs, within a designated area of the County. The above will be according to the guidance agreed within the Service.

· Maintain appropriate records of all work undertaken.

· Provide direct teaching to children as appropriate.

5. Improvement

Manage and lead work within one area of specialist responsibility, identifying and leading relevant improvement issues.

· Provide professional leadership to the team regarding one agreed area of work.

· Maintain an especially high level of knowledge in one agreed area of work.

· Co-ordinate and contribute to meetings regarding one agreed area of work.

Maintain a high level of personal professional expertise.

· Contribute to own performance review as set out in the Performance Management policy and guidelines.

· Undertake development opportunities to extend own knowledge and skills.

· Participate in and contribute to training arranged for the team and the Service

Working time: 195 days per year. Full time.

Disclosure level: enhanced

Necessary role-related knowledge for this position

· Fully qualified teacher status (with a minimum of 3 years class teaching experience).

· Professional Qualification in teaching children with a Special Educational Need, as relevant to the specified area of the service to which they are employed.

· Committed to equality of opportunity, enthusiastic and positive in the development of the Social Model of inclusion.

· Ability and willingness to undertake outreach to other settings.

· Ability to work collaboratively and effectively with colleagues, families and children.

· Employees will be expected to comply with any reasonable request from the Head of Service, to undertake work of a similar level that is not specified in this job description.

In addition the post holder will

· Work with due regard to the health and safety of themselves and others.

· Support managers in the development and implementation of health and safety practices.

· Draw attention to health and safety problems.

NB. This job description is current at the date shown, but in consultation with you, may be changed by the Head of Service to reflect or anticipate changes in the job commensurate with the grade and job title.

Annexe E

Summary of responses to additional questions raised by the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education)

1. Are the criteria used in the proposed strategy for the provision of education to deaf and hearing impaired children the right ones?

The `criteria' refers to the five strategic aims underpinning the current proposals:

· provision which will be able to offer both auditory/oral and signed modes of communication;

· viability of numbers, to maintain security of staffing and, wherever possible, of pupil peer group;

· geographical spread and accessibility;

· continuity between primary and secondary linked schools;

· provision of outreach to children and young people in other schools and settings.

The Children and Young People Select Committee endorsed this strategy on Oct 10^th 2006. Evidence from the expert witness indicates that these strategic aims are appropriate.

2. Will provision be available in light of where children live?

Refer to map produced by Children's Services (not reproducible in this format - for copies please contact the Scrutiny Officer, Children and Young People Select Committee, Policy Unit, Chief Executive's Department, Hampshire County Council; Tel: 01962 847567).

3. Will provision be available in the light of parents' preference for local mainstream school arising from satisfaction with the school and support from the STA service?

Parental preference has been highlighted as a key consideration in this review. Refer to Section 6.3ii-v of this report.

4. Will the pattern of provision take into account the importance of peer support?

Yes. Refer to 6.3i and 6.3vii of this report.

5. Please clarify the difference in support provided in resourced provision and the support provided by the STA service.

Refer to job descriptions at Annexe D.

6. Please provide a map of existing and proposed patterns of provision including details of where children live who attend resourced provision and those who receive support from the STA service (and who meet the County's criteria for placement in resourced provision).

Refer to map in question 2.

7. What is the likely impact on the viability of resourced provisions if four pyramids are retained rather than three?

Refer to section 6.3vii of this report.

Summary of responses to key lines of enquiry

Management of staff

Management of pupils

Policy

Liaison

Administration

Role Purpose

Key responsibilities and functions

Necessary role-related knowledge for this position

¹ The Government does not collect these figures.

² Includes children where the `degree of hearing loss is not identified'

Summary of responses to key lines of enquiry

Management of staff

Management of pupils

Policy

Liaison

Administration

Role Purpose

Key responsibilities and functions

Necessary role-related knowledge for this position

1 The Government does not collect these figures.

2 Includes children where the `degree of hearing loss is not identified'

¹ The Government does not collect these figures.

² Includes children where the `degree of hearing loss is not identified'