Archived decisions

1.

APOLOGIES

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B. D. Dash, J. Porter and D. A. Kirk, Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education).

2.

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Chairman welcomed those in attendance and in particular welcomed Dr. Steve Powers of Birmingham University who had been commissioned to assist with the review. The review group were advised that Dr. Powers was a senior lecturer in education and had been active in the field of deaf education since 1976, first as a teacher in special and mainstream contexts and then as a lecturer and researcher.

The Chairman reminded Members that the purpose of the review was to seek further evidence to determine whether recent proposals for the delivery of education to deaf and hearing impaired (HI) children in Hampshire would achieve the objectives of the agreed strategy for the delivery of the service.

The Chairman listed the following as anticipated outcomes from the review group:

·

That the Children and Young People Select Committee uses the evidence available to make recommendations to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education), to the effect that either:-

a)

current proposals for the delivery of education provision for deaf and HI children should be implemented with no changes

b)

current proposals for delivery of education provision for deaf and HI children should be implemented with specific changes

c)

current proposals for delivery of education provision for deaf and HI children should be implemented with no specific changes, but with recommendations for ongoing monitoring and/or review

d)

current proposals for delivery of education provision for deaf and HI children should not be implemented and existing provision should remain unchanged.

e)

current proposals for delivery of education provision for deaf and HI children should not be implemented and existing provision should remain unchanged, but recommendations for ongoing monitoring and/or review should be made.

3.

REPORT FROM DR. STEVEN POWERS

The review group considered in detail the report and findings of Dr. Steven Powers (Annexe A). The report covered the following issues:

·

Parents' and pupils' preferred options

·

Relative importance of nursery - primary and primary - secondary links

·

Attainment and achievement of deaf children

·

Specialist role of the teacher of the deaf

·

Pre-school intervention and its effectiveness

·

Process of inclusion

·

Development of sign bilingual approaches and assessment procedures

·

Implications of different language approaches

·

School/college transition

The review group noted the national trends in placement of deaf and HI children for the period 1994 - 2000 and considered that there was less of a change than anticipated, and in particular noted that:

· There was a decline in the number of pupils in special schools and an increase in the numbers in schools with resource bases and other mainstream schools.

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

· There was almost no change in the proportion of pupils in mainstream schools without resource bases.

It was acknowledged that, as there was no recent national data, placement trends may have altered in the intervening period and furthermore research suggested that cochlear implant programmes/new technology were having significant influence on placement decisions.

Dr. Powers observed that factors affecting choice of school became more complex at secondary school level as opposed to primary level where parents were more inclined to send their child to a local school. It was acknowledged that parental preference was a key factor in the choice of school placements although there was little evidence to show the precise reasons parents choose one school over another. Research into perceived factors that help and hinder deaf children achieve their potential showed that staffing and resources in school placements were the most important factors, with educational placement coming in at fifth place out of nine priorities cited. Whilst factors affecting parental preference were not clearly evident, the overall perception of the quality of schools was very important. In particular it was noted that Dr. Powers was of the opinion that parents choose school placements based on their perception of the school's ability to offer the pupil an opportunity to reach his or her potential.

The review group noted with interest that Dr. Powers' research had established no conclusive evidence either way to show the relative importance of providing nursery - primary links and primary - secondary links. Dr. Powers' personal professional opinion was that the importance of friendships was more marked at the primary - secondary transfer stage .

The review group were advised that there was limited useful data on the educational attainment of deaf pupils. This gap in knowledge meant that conclusions could not be drawn favouring one type of education over another in relation to outcomes later in life. It was noted that there was current interest among academic circles in researching this relationship and it was suggested that the Executive Member notes and acts upon any appropriate future research on outcomes for deaf and HI children regarding the impact of schooling later in life in areas such as employment and quality of life.

The review group noted the three relevant reports found in relation to the specialist role of the teacher of the deaf. In particular the group noted with interest the extract from an OfSTED report that stated that pupils who worked with specialist teachers made greater academic progress than when they had to rely on other types of support, including teaching assistants.

In relation to pre-school intervention and its effectiveness, the review group noted the findings of a study in America that stated that early identification and intervention gave a child the best chance for achieving proficiency in communication, language and literacy and that research in early intervention was now aiming to understand what works best, for whom, under what conditions, and to what outcomes.

There was also discussion about the proposed pyramid model and the underlying Communication Strategy. Children's Services reminded Members that there were no financial implications of selecting one model of provision over another. Dr. Powers indicated that there was no preferred model, based on research evidence, for the delivery of education provision for deaf/HI children, but he supported the pyramid model and underlying Communication Strategy. He stressed the importance of pupils' peer group size in resourced provision. Under current arrangements, Dr. Powers' view was that it would be difficult to deliver mixed mode provision in Hampshire but considered the pyramid model would rationalise current provision and increase peer group size.

There was also discussion about the schools earmarked to host resourced provision. Dr. Powers considered that it was important to identify what was effective in existing established units and try to emulate their success/ethos. It was considered that host schools should have an inclusive ethos and welcoming attitude to children with additional needs. In addition it was considered important to choose host schools which are favoured by parents due to parental preference factors. The review group were also advised that academic circles were considering another area of research into where existing resourced provision was located in the country.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW GROUP

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

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

2)

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

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

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

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

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

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