Summary of responses

1 Context

1.1 Parents' comments include:

· Research evidence quoted (in the report to Executive Member of 15 December 2005) is outdated and biased, and does not take account of the impact of early diagnosis and of current technologies. Some deaf educators believe that signing could be detrimental to the development of good spoken language.

· Figures (quoted in para. 2.2 of the report to Executive Member) relate to congenital deafness; figures are not included for deafness caused by illnesses such as meningitis.

· Concern about the shortage of signers; September 2007 is too premature to achieve the proposed change.

· Concern about their child being in a pilot scheme which does not seem to benefit any children and seems to be driven by cost, although the consultation paper did not include feasibility studies showing costs either way.

· Proposals are motivated by finance; no resourced provision should close.

· Parents' choice will be restricted.

· Parents should look at the school as a whole, including size of school to enable easier integration with hearing pupils, school's commitment to the resourced provision and integration of deaf children, quality of the school, as well as quality of the resourced provision.

· Why change a system that is working well?

· More support is needed for children not in resourced provision.

1.2 Schools' comments include:

· A number of responses noted that the review is welcomed/timely. There is a need to re-organise current provision.

· Most profoundly and moderately deaf children need to be taught regularly by a qualified teacher of the deaf. Outreach does not equate to daily support in resourced provision.

· Questions whether the large majority of deaf children are educated successfully in mainstream schools.

· Once resourced provisions are closed and staff expertise lost or dispersed, it will be difficult to put provision back in place.

· What comparative studies have been done? Dual provision must show benefits.

· The importance of maintaining viable peer groups supports the rationalisation of resourced provision and the inevitable closure of some provisions. The review demonstrates a positive step towards a long overdue improvement in flexibility in meeting individuals' needs, in line with parental choices. The rationalisation of provision and Communication Policy will move towards a more consistent range of options delivered within resourced provisions across the County.

· Parents' preferred choice (of mode of communication) is not always permanent as needs change. Parents should have access to informed choice as children's needs change. Disappointed by the reduction in the number of children using British Sign Language (BSL) as it can be a support to children who use aural/oral modes as `an extra string to their bow'.

· With reference to para. 4:9 of the consultation document (proposed criteria for the future pattern of provision), it will never be possible to have HI pupil peer groups of the same age. However, mainstream schools with an agenda of inclusion and a focus on social and emotional well-being will ensure cross-age friendships of HI pupils and peer age group support.

· Closure of some resourced provisions will mean children will have to travel further and not be in the same school as their friends; this could cause distress and affect achievement. Will the proposed changes benefit children or just save money?

· The review seems biased to schools in the Winchester area.

1.3 Others' comments include:

· The review is timely as the nature of deaf children is changing; care is required regarding families who want an auditory/oral approach.

· Little consideration has been given in the options to the high numbers of children in mainstream provision [i.e. not in resourced provision].

· A well written and considered paper which makes a clear case for looking at resourced provision viability. It is hard to provide equitable access.

· Peer group is a very important consideration when planning the consolidation of resourced provision due to the need for the children to have peers with whom to practise their language skills naturalistically without the need for an adult to always be present. The more deaf peers the better so that children can have some chance to choose their friends as others do rather than having to play with a child much older or younger.

· Parents do not generally seem to mind their children travelling to an appropriate school.

· Surrey has one secondary resource base which successfully offers dual provision; i.e. both auditory/oral and signing methodologies taught according to need. This is successful due to the ability to provide separate teaching and support within a larger environment with flexibility of time-tabling.

· In addition to geographical location being important for accessibility, it must also be considered in terms of availability of specialist staff to support children in mainstream schools.

· Rationalisation is required to provide a peer group. A pyramid system that allows for distance to be considered is good.

· Fully in agreement with the need to review provision; it should be available according to the individual needs of each child/family. Primary and secondary provision should be linked.

· In principle the proposals seem logical.

· Research evidence emphasises: the importance of a viable peer group for all deaf/HI pupils to support social and emotional development; the benefits of access to both auditory/oral and total communication systems for all deaf/HI children and young people; early signing improves language development regardless of communication systems considered appropriate subsequently; sufficiently large peer group ensures participation in curriculum experiences and peer relationships without relying on adult mediation; the community of deaf/HI pupils in a resourced provision should be of sufficient size to make a positive contribution to the whole school community.

· Where is the evidence to support the statement that newborn screening and early identification of hearing impairment may enable deaf and HI children to develop better auditory/oral communication skills?

· The reduction in numbers of children using BSL is a result of the lack of pre-school signing provision and lack of avenues for parents of deaf children to learn BSL. (Hampshire Deaf Association)

· Good early intervention (alongside early diagnosis and Cochlear Implants) contributes to the expectation that deaf and HI children will develop better auditory/oral communication skills in future. Early intervention (0-2 years) and pre-school provision (3-4 years) should have been given higher priority. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· There is not a consensus within the deaf education community that different modes of communication can be supported in the same classroom without detrimental effect on learning and communication skills. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· The range of services provided by the Elizabeth Foundation (for 25 years) was not adequately or correctly described in the consultation document. Elizabeth Foundation are specialists in the earliest stages of early intervention, including diagnosis support to families with the youngest diagnosed babies and children and offer a range of educational programmes and support for children (up to five years) and their families, many of which focus on development of auditory/oral skills. Strongly support informed choice and the provision to families of good quality support for whichever mode they want to focus on. (Elizabeth Foundation)

2 Communication Policy

2.1 Responses, using the proforma, to the statement: "I support the proposed adoption of the Communication Policy attached to the consultation papers" were:

Yes No

Parents : 33 3

Schools: 19 2

Others: 24 1

Total : 76 6

Comments/reasons for response included:

2.2 Parents

· Not enough emphasis on giving advice/support for development of listening and language or acoustics in schools. There should be reference to voluntary organisations that provide support and guidance.

· [Our child] uses primarily speech but, with his current cochlear implant failure, a signing environment would have helped support him greatly at this difficult and frustrating time.

· I support the policy because it enables parents and children to choose the correct communication mode for them.

· I have concerns whether all teachers of the deaf and communication support workers will adhere to the policy. How are staff that have used only auditory/oral approaches to teaching going to be able to offer sign? A significant training programme will need to be put in place covering not only the HI unit but the school it is within.

· Not enough evidence to make an informed choice as to the practical implications.

2.3 Schools

· [The Policy] makes no reference to resourced provision for HI children. Closure of resourced provision and putting the onus on a peripatetic system will not fully meet the needs of HI children.

· Insufficient evidence provided to support the Policy. No framework is developed for the practical delivery of parallel modes of communication.

· The Communication Policy will support the achievement of the five outcomes for children in the Children Act 2004. It will be possible to meet the communication needs of individual children as these develop throughout their schooling. The communication needs of children often change as they develop and progress through different stages of schooling.

· Likely to be a significant training implication in order to ensure that all staff supporting deaf students are able to advise upon/deliver the full range of communication modes that may be required by children.

· The period of change will need to be very carefully managed and considerable support will be needed to enable schools and staff to make the necessary changes.

· The County should switch to bilingual provision for deaf pupils in mainstream schools and, fundamentally, should provide this in pre-school settings. In the long term it would reduce the stress on parents who currently have to make difficult decisions regarding communication at an early stage.

· Yes; need to support and fully integrate children's and families' needs.

· Qualified yes; must ensure that support and advice for staff and parents does not `water down' time spent working directly with children to improve their learning.

· The Communication Policy is well thought through and is very sound in principle. Children's needs change over time; it is essential that children and young people have the opportunity to use BSL whenever it will support them in developing appropriate communication skills. It is important that children do not turn to BSL with a sense of having failed using other communication modes as this can damage their social and emotional well-being.

· Staff in any school setting will always do their best for the children in their care but often they do not have a broad awareness of the issues, concerning communication modes. There are immense training needs for parents and other adults who are supporting a deaf or HI child.

· Welcome the child-centred approach now proposed rather than rigid separation.

· A pre-school child unable to communicate is desperate; [in our resourced provision] any kind of communication technique that works is used to enable children to express themselves and interact with adults and children.

2.4 Others

· Good principle to adopt but realise there are many issues: development of staff skills; willingness on all sides for both philosophies; funding issues.

· Endorse the importance of flexibility of provision for young people to have access to different communication models as they grow and develop.

· To ensure a child-centred approach, we would like to see this become a multi- agency policy, clearly identifying the commitment, roles and responsibilities of different services in meeting the needs of children and families.

· More clarity needed on the type of support to be provided and who is going to provide this.

· List of `appropriate support' should include teacher of the deaf.

· A sensible document; however, outcome will depend on individual interpretation, monitoring and research, and the provision of personnel with the skills and attributes needed to deliver.

· Deaf children have a right to be able to acquire a language (sign-based or oral) and not just to be able to "get by" using a mixture of communication tactics. It is not acceptable for a deaf child not to have a language. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· The Policy should refer to "informed choice". The Policy rightly does not make judgements about the different modes of communication. The importance of family involvement and commitment to a chosen mode of communication is sensible. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· The Policy does not indicate whether provision should be based on specialisation in particular modes or whether all provisions should attempt to offer all modes. It is not possible to deliver high quality support and provision across multiple or different modes in the same setting. (Elizabeth Foundation)

3 Resourced provision: communication modes

3.1 Responses, using the pro-forma, to the statement "I agree that the County Council should develop resourced provision which can include both auditory/oral and signing modes of communication" were:

Yes No

Parents: 34 3

Schools: 21 2

Others: 16 1

Total : 71 6

Comments/reasons for response included.

3.2 Parents

· Removal of auditory/oral resourced provision does not offer an improved or comprehensive service, and contradicts the principle of informed choice.

· Not enough detail on how it will happen and implications for children within existing resourced provision.

· Our child had always followed the auditory/oral route; sole concentration on the auditory/oral mode allows one form of communication and learning is channelled via this route; mixing with signers will be detrimental to both signing and auditory children. Signing children may feel less accepted, with a greater risk of being subject to bullying.

· Not happy to have [my child] in a class with a signing student and interpreter; this would be very distracting and confusing for a deaf child trying to pursue an oral education.

· Financial implication would need further consultation.

· This type of provision would have made choosing for [our child] to attend a resource base a lot easier, possibly earlier in his school life. Although we were hoping that he would primarily use aural/oral communication methods, it seemed obvious to us that he will always have need of signing as a second communication method. It seemed strange to us that this was not the norm for HI provision currently. Ultimately [our child] may decide, as a deaf adult, he wants to be part of the deaf community.

· Safeguards need to be put in place to ensure parents' and child's choice of communication is paramount.

· [Our child] has greatly benefited from this approach at Nursery and it has given her a huge amount of confidence and enabled her to be understood by all who care for her as she develops speech.

3.3 Schools

· Learning abilities of oral and signing children are too different; the latter would suffer morally if sat next to an oral child.

· Staff in auditory/oral provisions will need to be properly trained.

· Access to a range of communication modes is vital to a child's changing needs and gives the best opportunity to be integrated with the peer group.

· Fully in favour of enriching children's lives, open up all channels of communication.

· The change should be well thought out and introduced slowly.

· Financial considerations.

· Support ECM agenda that schools should meet the needs of all children; but the document does not say how this should happen.

· Children's needs may vary over time and through the day, depending on the subject and/or style of delivery. Currently change in communication mode requires a change of placement, which can be detrimental to social development and friendships; and reduce self esteem.

· A school with a range of communication modes provides a more positive and natural deaf community; a wider and varied peer group is a significant need.

· HI children need information about both systems in order to make informed choices in different circumstances.

· Continuity pre-school to secondary is important; both auditory/oral and signing modes need to be taught.

· Changes should involve children in as little disruption as possible.

3.4 Others

· More discussion needed; more information required; needs very careful consideration particularly in view of oral/aural children.

· Whilst this is successful [in Surrey] at secondary level, remain cautious about this approach in primary phase when early skills are still being developed.

· Recent research and our own experience suggest children should have access to the full range. Children's needs change over time; the service should fit the child (not vice versa).

· Best to maintain a high quality, focused resource rather than thinly spread across the County.

· Needs to be carefully thought out and organised; will take time for culture to change.

· Research clearly indicates the advantages of early signing in developing oral and written language.

· Only if existing staff expertise is maintained; not all excellent and well intentioned teachers of the deaf become competent signers.

· Ideally I feel that auditory/oral and signing modes should not be available together. However, looking at the overall picture, this may be the only way to provide all the other needs.

· Resourced provision should offer children both auditory/oral and signing modes. It is vital that children are not experimented on. Teaching needs to be individually focused. (Hampshire Deaf Association)

· The numbers of pupils make `yes' the only logical response. However, the delivery of the curriculum and the way that English is developed for the two groups will be different and will require different support. (Hampshire Deaf Association)

· Resourced provision fails to mention the benefits of adult deaf role models and mentors. (Hampshire Deaf Association)

· We do not believe that families are demanding `mixed mode' resourced provision. It may not be valid to create greater numbers in peer groups at the expense of other considerations. Although it is sensible to achieve geographical spread and accessibility of resourced provision across the County, the take up of places may decrease if parents do not want this type of provision. If all provision is mixed mode, there is effectively no choice. The demand for placements in independent/non-maintained schools may increase, where provision is either auditory/oral or sign-based. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· A range of different types of resourced provision, specialising in high quality support and providing appropriate environments should be provided. We are not in favour of any of the options for the organisation of resourced provision.

4 Organisation of Resourced Provision

4.1 Responses, using the proforma, to the statement "I support the following options for the future organisation of resourced provision" were:

	Yes				No
Responses	P	S	O	Total	P	S	O	Total
Option 1 a	16	6	9	31	6	6	-	12
Option 1 b	3	1	7	11	10	6	1	17
Option 2	2	5	2	9	11	5	3	19
Option 3 a	14	9	3	26	7	6	2	15
Option 3 b	4	4	1	9	10	4	2	16
Option 4	15	10	5	30	8	5	3	16

(Note: P = parents; S = schools; O = others)

Where respondents indicated an order of preference, there were:

	1st pref.	2nd pref.	3rd pref.	4th pref.
Option 1 a	5	1	1	2
Option 1 b	3	2	1	-
Option 2	-	3	1	-
Option 3 a	4	2	-	1
Option 3 b	-	3	2	1

4.2 Additional comments/reasons for response included the following. These have been grouped in relation to the school or area to which they primarily refer.

Basingstoke: Park View Infant & Junior schools, and Aldworth Science College.

4.3 Parents:

· Some of the children attending the Park View schools use bad language and aggressive behaviour. This is not the environment to educate a deaf child.

· [My child] greatly benefited from this [integrated] approach at Park View Nursery. I do not support the closure of resourced provision at Park View Nursery/Infant School.

4.4 Schools: staff and governors:

Chair of Governors, Park View Infant School

· There is a need to re-organise the current provision and have a clear policy for this to be effective.

· Access to a range of communication modes is vital to a child's changing needs, and gives them the best opportunity to be integrated with their peer group.

· It is important to have a continuing provision. Park View Infant School is the only school in the County already offering provision for deaf and HI children in the Foundation Stage.

· I agree with the criteria in para. 4.9 [of the consultation document] but feel that the standards of education at the chosen schools cannot be ignored. Children should not be expected to go to a school that has a proven bad record (just because it is in the right place geographically).

· Supports Option 2.

Headteacher, Park View Infant School

· Park View Infant School has adapted its provision to enable children to receive both auditory/oral and signed communication.

· Provision is available for children aged 3 - 16 within the cluster of schools. Staff are committed to working and liaising together.

· Parents speak highly of the provision and of the support given by staff.

· Park view Infant School is the only nursery maintained by Hampshire County Council providing support for HI children. It is a venue for coffee mornings, enabling parents of HI children to meet other parents and professionals. The nursery is recognised as providing good quality of education as many professionals visit the provision to further their expertise in delivering the curriculum to HI children. This expertise would be lost if the provision closes.

· Ofsted confirmed that provision for HI pupils is good.

· There is an increase in the number of children wishing to attend the provision.

· Geographically, the school can service a wide area, including Andover, Winchester and Farnborough.

· Park View Infant & Junior schools have experience of providing outreach.

Headteacher, Park View Junior School

· Agrees that the County Council should develop resourced provision which can include both auditory/oral and signing modes of communication, but this should be well thought through and introduced slowly.

· First preference: Option 3a

Headteacher, Aldworth Science College

· Although Aldworth college has only two HI pupils officially on roll, a few physically disabled pupils have hearing problems and benefit from HI staff input and expertise.

· It will never be possible to have HI pupil peer groups of the same age.

· Option 3a is most strongly supported as the best option.

Teacher in Charge, Aldworth Science College

· Strong pyramids exist in Areas 1 and 2 [North]. Friendships with hearing peers are maintained both in and out of school. Aldworth College has operated with a part-time teacher of the deaf for four years. Support is given to children with both PD and HI. [Aldworth College is resourced for both needs.]

Farnborough: Manor Infant and Junior & Cove schools

4.5 Parents

· Manor School should not be retained [in preference to Medstead Primary School] as it does not offer a full range of communication modes and the school's philosophy discouraged sign. Ofsted reports show that Manor Junior School does not offer value for money. Its location does not ensure access within reasonable travelling distance of most parts of the County. Although there is continuity between primary and secondary phases, there is none from nursery.

· All options retain the Manor/Cove pyramid and this obviously reflects the high level of investment, expertise and success of these schools. We have been seeking pre-school provision in the Manor site to enhance further the current provision.

4.6 Staff & governors

Response of governors, parents, headteachers and HI staff of Manor Infant and Junior schools, and the headteacher and teacher in charge of resourced provision at Cove School:

· Communication Policy: we are unable to answer this question because there is insufficient evidence to support an informed decision. We have found little research to support this policy and no framework is outlined for the practical delivery of parallel communication modes.

· Communication modes: the consultation paper is not written in sufficient detail for us to subscribe to the County's vision. We therefore have concerns as to how the practical implications would be resolved.

· Organisation of resourced provision: all options retain the Manor/Cove pyramid and this obviously reflects the high level of investment, expertise and success of these schools. We have been seeking pre-school provision on the Manor site to enhance the current provision.

Fareham & Gosport: Wallisdean Infant & Junior and Neville Lovett schools

4.7 Parents

· No comments were received with reference to these schools.

4.8 Staff and governors

Headteacher and teacher in charge, Woodcot Primary School:

· Communication Policy: in our experience children's needs often change over time. In Woodcot School, we have found that children who cannot access communication through auditory/oral methods often turn to BSL at a later stage in their life.

· Communication modes: we support the principle that the Country should develop resourced provision which can include auditory/oral and signed modes of communication.

· Organisation of resourced provision: we have been incredibly and painfully disappointed that none of the options allow for the retention of provision at Woodcot School. However, we can see that the school does not meet the criteria in Section 4.9 [of the consultation document] and we accept that continuity between primary and secondary school is in the best interest of children.

· We believe that families in the south west of the County will remain poorly served unless a pre-school and primary phase resourced provision is established in the Winchester area.

· Consultation: the review has had a negative impact on the school and its resourced provision, as a result of which:

- there are children whose need may not be appropriately met and their parents are `in limbo';

- staff are fearful for their futures.

· Whole school: from our experience we know that all staff, governors, children and parents in a school with resourced provision where BSL is used as a significant form of communication need to have their awareness raised about communication using BSL. We have developed expertise in this area as many of our hearing children embrace opportunities to learn BSL.

· Transition: we believe it is vital that the local authority supports children remaining in the provision until the end of their current Key Stage.

· Re-organisation: we believe this is can increase the opportunities for more deaf and HI children to have access to BSL as a useful tool to aid their communication. It is vital that new provision is not perceived by children, parents and the community of the school as providing auditory/oral methods and paying lip-service to BSL and other signing modes.

Headteacher and teacher in charge, Wallisdean Junior School

· We agree with the policy that the County should switch to bilingual provision for deaf pupils and, fundamentally, should also provide this in pre-school settings.

· The period of change will need to be very carefully managed and considerable support will be needed to enable schools and staff to make the necessary changes.

· We fully support the proposals in Options 1a and 1b as these allow deaf children to remain within the same peer group through primary and secondary provision and would provide a geographically fair spread of provision.

Winchester: Henry Beaufort and The Westgate schools

4.9 Parents

· Henry Beaufort School has a proven track record of creating significant value added with HI pupils.

· Henry Beaufort School's provision is well resourced with experienced outreach.

· Our child would be appropriate for resourced provision and we feel it is an unjustifiable anomaly that there is not one [for primary age pupils] in Winchester. We agree that it is valuable that it is part of a pyramid linked to a secondary school. It is unjustifiable that most hearing children go to a secondary school with their peers whilst deaf children may have to start again at 11.

· We feel unqualified to voice a preference for The Westgate or Henry Beaufort schools as the base for provision in Winchester. For us the location of The Westgate School is marginally superior compared with Henry Beaufort. The fact that mainstream staff at The Westgate may have a more fluent grasp on the use of sign language as they are currently exposed to sign language should be regarded as positive.

· Projected numbers show Henry Beaufort School to be more viable than The Westgate School.

4.10 Staff and governors

Headteacher and teacher in charge, Henry Beaufort School

· Henry Beaufort School has a proven track record of creating significant value added with HI students, and has experience of providing outreach. Twenty-two soundfield systems have been installed.

· We believe that students from Medstead and Woodcot, in addition to a new feeder primary school, could feed into a joint signing/oral provision at Henry Beaufort School.

Headteacher and teacher in charge, The Westgate School

· A complete pyramid of schools with resourced provision is essential in the Winchester area. The value of a local peer group cannot be underestimated in terms of social, emotional and linguistic development.

· The Westgate School is currently the only secondary resourced provision in Hampshire which supports students who require signing. Staff are highly skilled in working with students with a range of communication needs. Through outreach work they have supported students from nursery to KS4. This is a valuable human resource which has taken many years to develop and may be lost by closure.

Headteacher, Kings Worthy Primary School

· Provision is needed in the west of the County; the school chosen should be accessible, offer continuity primary and secondary, have good acoustics and enjoy the support of parents.

Medstead Primary School

4.11 Responses from parents of Medstead School

· Flexibility to move between signing and auditory/oral modes: Medstead has a flexible approach and can provide both signing and auditory/oral communication in a flexible way which is responsive to the needs of individual children.

· Geographical spread and accessibility: parents' choice of a school which benefits their child outweighs any potential disadvantage of increased travel time. Parents' priorities should hold weight in the consideration of the options.

· Peer group: the ratio of deaf/HI children to total pupil numbers is higher at Medstead than any other school offering total communication. There are enough deaf/HI children of similar age to provide friendship groups and camaraderie between deaf and HI children which is apparent in the playground.

· Continuity between primary and secondary provision: the suggested benefits of a smooth transition from inclusive primary to inclusive secondary are not proven and are not great enough to merit losing the benefits of the excellent and proven primary provision at Medstead Primary School. Many parents prefer a special school with a critical mass of other deaf/HI children at secondary stage. Even if rationalisation of the provision leads to a slight increase in numbers in individual secondary schools, they will still not provide a big enough peer group to create the benefits that the consultation document suggests come from more than one deaf child per year group.

· Pre-school: Medstead Primary School provides an excellent advice and communication support service for deaf/HI children and their families. There is continuity of communication provision between pre-school and primary school at Medstead.

· Extra-curricular activities: Medstead Primary School offers inclusive provision of extra-curricular activities, e.g. after-school sports, inclusive music and drama productions and skiing trips.

· Whole school: Medstead School offers good class sizes, is welcoming and the whole school is deaf aware.

4.12 Response from staff and governors of Medstead Primary School

· Auditory and signed modes of communication: in Medstead Primary School, Signed English, BSL and English are all used by the children who change their mode of communication to suit the audience. Deaf pupils are confident in the hearing community and they are encouraged to use their preferred mode of communication to facilitate independence.

· Viability of numbers: the small school environment with its inclusive approach ensures that deaf pupils are not overwhelmed by the predominantly hearing environment. The number of deaf pupils has remained quite constant over the last five years and the school increased its capacity to eight deaf pupils in 2002.

· Geographical spread and accessibility: Medstead Primary School is in the centre of Hampshire and can be accessed quickly compared to a town school. Travel miles in urban areas are less energy efficient. Parents are comfortable with the journey that their children make. Communicators living locally do not regard travelling to the north of the County as cost effective and these valuable staff may be lost.

· Continuity between primary and secondary linked schools: parental preference at secondary level is based on a mixture of factors, not just friendship groups. During adolescence, deaf pupils are often lonely and vulnerable. Numbers of deaf peers at the mainstream secondary schools will not guarantee a child of the same age and gender with whom they can discuss their personal life. An intensive deaf environment supports pupils at this time and our experience is that parents of pupils leaving Medstead Primary School prefer a deaf school.

· Provision of outreach: Medstead Primary School has been approached to provide `inreach' for a pupil in another mainstream school to provide a peer group. Pupils have moved to Medstead from [other] mainstream schools to access the excellent provision.

· Conclusion: the school's provision is exemplary and fits all the criteria apart from the linked secondary school. "Whilst we understand the rationale for this criterion, we feel it takes a simplistic view and would challenge its validity in practical terms for our deaf children."

Response from Medstead Pre-school and Nursery

· The pre-school/nursery operates in its own purpose-built accommodation in the school grounds. Profoundly deaf/HI children have attended the pre-school and staff have worked closely with outside professional agencies.

· The pre-school/nursery has very close contact with the school. A signing member of staff from the pre-school works for two afternoons in the Reception Class and as a lunch-time supervisor, providing a familiar figure.

· The children are included in all areas of the pre-school curriculum. Staff use the mode of communication that is most effective for each child and in line with parents' wishes.

· Having profoundly deaf children in the group provides a very positive experience for the hearing children who interact well with their deaf peers; this continues when they go to Medstead Primary School.

· Pre-school staff run BSL courses for parents, students and leaders of local organisations. This helps communication to continue when the children are invited to friends' houses or join local organisations (e.g. Beavers, Guides).

Responses from children attending Medstead Primary School

· We like having deaf children in our school.

· We like to learn to sign and enjoy signed singing. We will lose those skills if we are not around deaf people.

· Having the deaf children in our school makes it a special place.

Chair of PTA (Friends of Medstead Primary School)

· The school's HI provision has run a successful total communication system for many years that has attracted the parents and HI children to the school from many parts of the County and outside of Hampshire.

· Medstead is a small school that relies on children from out of its catchment to keep it open. It does not matter that some children come from some distance away - most of them do!

· It would be ideal for one of the three maintained [secondary] schools that Medstead feeds to have a HI provision.

· A number of parents of HI children have been known to send their children to Medstead Primary School because they wanted their children to learn sign language and become used to HI disability.

Responses from others

· Peer groups are vital to the development of social and emotional confidence of deaf children as a key that opens communication doors for future life. (Hampshire Deaf Association)

5 Support for pre-school children and their families

5.1 Responses, using the proforma, to the statement, "I agree that the County Council should:

a) provide access to comprehensive support and advice services; and

b) ensure that communication support is available in line with the Communication Policy" were:

a) Yes No

Parents: 38 -

Schools: 22 1

Others: 15 -

Total: 75 1

b) Yes No

Parents: 34 2

Schools: 21 -

Others: 14 1

Total: 69 3

Comments / reasons for responses included:

5.2 Parents

· Parents of newly diagnosed children should have access to all unavailable information and services; this should be unbiased.

· Parents should understand that communication methods are not static; there should be help for the whole family; access to role models.

· There is currently no emotional support to families of newly diagnosed children, nor family learning to adapt to the new family dynamics.

· Children in the early years should be encouraged to pursue auditory/oral communication. Deaf children then pick up signing at a later date.

5.3 Schools

· More needs to be done: the consultation pays scant regard to the needs of pre-school children and families. Wherever possible, pre-school provision should be attached to primary phase resourced provision.

· Support is beneficial and necessary to avoid parents and children feeling isolated.

· There should be more than support and advice.

· Parents should be able to make informed choices; every parent should have the best choice for their child - they need advice and experience of teachers of the deaf.

· Support and advice should be in line with the Communication Policy to ensure smooth entry to school.

· The early years are significant in the development of language skills.

5.4 Others

· It would be good to have some sign language training regularly for parents and an identified centre for pre-school children and their parents to attend.

· Research clearly indicates the value of early intervention and family learning.

· Early support and advice are very important in making an informed choice.

· Parents would be more successful in communicating if this were provided.

· Need to recognise the centrality of parents and enable them to make a positive choice; and to recognise the importance of fostering independence and enabling the family to learn to sign.

· Support centres should be local and not linked to resourced provision to avoid assumptions about school placement.

· Concern about the recruitment of suitably qualified communication support workers (CSW).

· BSL evening classes are not appropriate for parents of pre-school children; training needs to include other family members. Parents are badly informed and encouraged to pursue an oral route.

· As we disagree with the Communication Policy, we must disagree that pre-school services should be in line with it. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· No time-table is set out for further work in this area yet the 0-4 age group presents the biggest opportunity for high quality early intervention. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· There are no dedicated services in Hampshire to provide programmes of support to families in the acquisition of sign language skills. Deaf advocates should work alongside specialist teacher advisers to enable parents to make informed choices. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· Nursery provision with bilingual options needs to be developed.

6 Other issues

6.1 Parents

· There should be more locally based support for primary schools. How would outreach work? Children in mainstream schools [without resourced provision] should have support of experienced staff and parents need contact with other families.

· Concern that Hampshire County Council will advocate signing with deaf babies and children.

6.2 Schools

· The consultation has been rushed and is only a paper exercise.

· The consultation paper did not provide sufficient detail to enable us to subscribe to the County's vision; concern about moving too quickly.

· No reference to specialist speech and language therapy services; roles should be identified and integrated as part of resourced provision.

· Concern that only one resourced provision has a specialist nursery; specialist support in the early years will have a positive effect on early language development.

6.3 Others

· Need for partnership working with other local authorities. Is Hampshire County Council proposing to continue to use provision in neighbouring local authorities?

· Support the principle of outreach.

· Change to resourced provision in some areas may impact on provision of speech and language therapy service (e.g. Winchester).

· Further support is needed to facilitate social integration into school and community clubs; opportunities for children to meet socially.

· Clarification of funding mechanisms required.

· Should specialist teacher advisers and teachers of the deaf in resourced provisions merge into one service?

· Hampshire County Council's resourced provisions are good academically but have room for improvement in social and emotional development.

· Need to consult more widely with the deaf adult community; HDA can assist. (Hampshire Deaf Association)

· There are problems with Youth Service support for deaf young people. Apart from activities during half term and summer break, there are no dedicated after-school clubs for young people. Pupils at resourced schools usually miss out on extra-curricular activities due to transport issues. (Hampshire Deaf Association)

· There is a need for high quality acoustic environments in schools and other settings; this will benefit not only children with moderate to profound hearing loss but the greater numbers with milder loss and other children with certain behavioural, autistic spectrum or attention-deficit disorders. (Elizabeth Foundation)

· The consultation document was not distributed to parents of pre-school children or parents of other children not attending resourced provision, including parents of children in independent/non-maintained provision. (Elizabeth Foundation)