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

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:

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:

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:

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.

6. Key lines of enquiry

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

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:

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:

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

12th 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 17th 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 or hard of hearing child are difficult to make, partly because of the lack of definitive proof of the superiority of any particular communication approach. ... Eighty-three parents were surveyed about decision factors that may have affected their choice of communication modality. The child's extent of hearing loss was the most influential decision factor (P<.001). Technology that aims at improving the child's ability to speak (eg, cochlear implants) had no significant impact on the decision to choose oral 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:

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

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

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

Further reading and resources

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

Susan Gregory, Sandra Smith and Alison Wells.

Language and identity in sign bilingual deaf children.

This particular research forms part of a much larger study of bilingual education in which 25 deaf children from two settings using a sign bilingual approach were

studied over the period of one year. This study is based on interviews, carried out by a deaf researcher, when the children were aged between 7-11 years. It explored the extent to which these children understood the difference between deaf and hearing and between BSL and English, their ideas about deafness and hearingness, and their sense of their own identity.

Despite the complexity of the some of the issues covered, all of the children were able to answer most, if not all, of the questions. Most of them had a developing understanding of the difference between deaf and hearing people, although some located this difference in the ability to communicate through sign language. The children valued sign language for the facility it gave them to communicate, form relationships and to participate at school. However they also saw English as important and a significant factor in interacting with the hearing world. The children were confident that they would grow to be deaf adults and appeared to have a strong sense of their own worth as developing deaf young people.

Ros Herman, Sallie Holmes and Bencie Woll

Assessing BSL Development: Receptive Skills Test (RST)

The RST is a video-based assessment of children's comprehension of morphology and syntax in British Sign Language. The assessment was developed on 41 native signing children and standardised on 135 children. The standardisation sample included native signers (hearing and deaf) and deaf children from hearing families. The latter were carefully selected as using BSL as their preferred means of communication. Approximately half of these were children on established BSL/English bilingual educational programmes; the remainder were selected from total communication programmes.

Through use of the RST, it was established that deaf children on bilingual programmes achieve BSL scores that are comparable to native signers, indicating the success of bilingual programmes in developing BSL as a mother tongue for deaf children whose parents are not themselves native signers. Children on total communication programmes did less well, unless there were other deaf family members to provide further communication opportunities in BSL outside of school.

Subsequent data collection from the wider population on BSL users in the UK (Herman and Roy, 2006) confirmed the advantage to children in native families in terms of the BSL development and showed that overall, deaf children in hearing families were at risk of not achieving age-appropriate BSL skills.

Ros Herman, Nicola Grove, Sallie Holmes, Gary Morgan, Hilary Sutherland and Bencie Woll

Assessing BSL Development: Production Test (Narrative Skills).

Data collected in the initial assessment development project was used to develop a test of narrative skills in British Sign Language. Using an elicited story recall task, norms were derived from 75 children from the original sample. Data analysis revealed a pattern of development of narrative skills closely matching that observed for hearing children developing spoken narratives.

Ros Herman, Bencie Woll and Tyrone Woolf

Development of a BSL version of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI).

The CDI is a parent report tool of lexical development and has been translated into many languages, including American Sign Language. This project currently underway to develop a BSL version of the CDI is run by City University and the Centre for Deafness, Cognition & Language (DCAL) at University College, London. Data is being collected on 68 native signers aged 6-36 months. The project is linked to the Positive Support study and will be completed in 2008.

Ruth Swanwick

Deaf children's developing sign bilingualism: dimensions of language ability, use and awareness

The focus of this study was deaf children's developing bilingualism in BSL and English (sign bilingualism). The research explored individual sign bilingualism focusing on ways in which deaf children use their two languages, their perception of the differences between them and the influences that that two languages have on each other. Six individual case studies were undertaken with sign bilingual deaf children between 7 and 8 years of age. Information about each child's strategies for moving between BSL and written English was collected through specifically developed translation and comparative analysis activities. From the data collected some of the individual characteristics of sign bilingualism including dimensions of metalinguistic proficiency were described focusing on the individual's skills within, between and across each language domain. The findings revealed dimensions of children's sign bilingualism which illustrate the potential of a focus on metalinguistic abilities for developing approaches to literacy instruction and for providing a framework for further research into deaf children's sign bilingual language development.

REFERENCES

BATOD (2007) Data from the BATOD Survey [online] http://www.batod.org.uk/index.php?id=/publications/survey [Accessed September 11th 2007]

Eatough (2000) Raw data from the BATOD Survey England January 1998. BATOD Magazine, May 2000, 1-8.

Gregory, S., Boulton, A., Harris, D., Lynas, W., McCracken, W., Powers, S., Watson, L. (2001) The Education of Deaf Pupils: Perspectives of Parents, Teachers and Deaf Adults. London: RNID.

Hopwood, V., Gallaway, C. (1999) Evaluating the linguistic experience of a deaf child in a mainstream class: a case study. Deafness and Education International, 3, 172-187.

Karchmer, M. A., Mitchell, R. E. (2003) Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In M. Marschark, P. E. Spencer (Eds) Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Li, Y., Bain, L., Steinberg, A. G. (2003) Parental decision making and the choice of communication modality for the child who is deaf [online] http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/2/162?lookupType=volpage&vol=157&fp=162&view=short [Accessed September 11th 2007]

Marschark, M., Rhoten, C., Fabich, M. (2007) On ethics and deafness: research, pedagogy and politics. Deafness and Education International, 9, 45-61.

Marschark, M., Spencer, P. E. (2003) What we know, what we don't know, and what we should know. In M. Marschark, P. E. Spencer (Eds) Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marschark, M., Spencer, P. E. (Eds) (2003) Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS) (2001) My School in Scotland: A Review of Deaf Pupils' Experiences at Mainstream Schools. Glasgow: NDCS.

National Literacy Trust (2007) Primary secondary transfer [online] http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/secondary/prisec.html [Accessed September 11th 2007]

National Pupil Datasets (2007) Data tables analysis for Key Stage 4 pupils 2005/06. Data submitted on disc from NPD.

Ofsted (2006) Inclusion: Does it Matter Where Pupils are Taught? [online] http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/2535 [Accessed July 2006]

Powers, S. (2000) The Educational Attainments of Year 11 Deaf Students in Mainstream Programmes in England and Influencing Factors. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Birmingham.

Powers, S. (2002) From concepts to practice in deaf education: A United Kingdom perspective on inclusion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 230-243.

Powers, S. (2006) Learning from Success: High Achieving Deaf Pupils. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

Powers, S. (2007) The Educational Attainments of Deaf Pupils: A Discussion Paper on Data Currently Available [online] http://www.batod.org.uk/index.php?id=/articles/research [Accessed September 2007]

Powers, S., Gregory, S., Lynas, L., McCracken, W., Watson, L., Boulton, A., Harris, E. (1999) A Review of Good Practice in Deaf Education. London: RNID.

Powers, S., Gregory, S. and Thoutenhoofd, (Eds.) (1998) The Educational Achievements of Deaf Children London: DfEE.

RNID (2002) Inclusion: What Deaf Pupils Think. London: RNID.

Sass-Lehrer, M., Bodner-Johnson, B. (2003) Early intervention: current approaches to family-centered programming. In M. Marschark, P. E. Spencer (Eds) Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Singleton, J. L., Morgan, D. D. (2006) Natural signed language acquisition within the social context of the classroom. In B. Schick, M. Marschark, P. E. Spencer (Eds) Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, P. E., Marschark, M. (Eds) (2006) Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swanwick, R., Gregory, S. (2007) Sign Bilingual Education: Policy and Practice. DRAFT VERSION.

Watson, L. M., Archbold, S. M., Nikolopoulos, T. P. (2006) Children's communication mode five years after implantation: changes over time according to age at implant. Cochlear Implants International, 7, 77-91.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2006) Early identification, communication modality, and the development of speech and spoken language skills: patterns and considerations. In P. E. Spencer, M. Marschark (Eds) Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Annexe B

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

5. Improvement

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

Maintain a high level of personal professional expertise.

Working time: 195 days per year. Full time.

Disclosure level: enhanced

Necessary role-related knowledge for this position

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)

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

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

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).

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

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

Refer to job descriptions at Annexe D.

Refer to map in question 2.

Refer to section 6.3vii of this report.

1 The Government does not collect these figures.

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