This section of Count us in: Achieving success for deaf pupils describes some of the practice observed by HMIE during inspections and in specific visits to evaluate the quality of education for deaf pupils. The evaluation was carried out using quality indicators from How good is our school?. Key messages about what is necessary to achieve success for deaf pupils are summarised at the end of each section. These form the basis of the following section on planning for excellence.
Accessing the curriculum
On the whole, deaf pupils had access to an appropriate curriculum, informed by national and local advice. Well-planned personalisation of the curriculum to ensure choice and coherence was the key to success for pupils. Support from additional staff, including teachers of the deaf, learning assistants or communication assistants was the most significant resource which enabled access to the curriculum.
In the best provision, teachers planned effectively to ensure that there was a balance between programmes to meet the very specialised needs of individuals and ensure access to the same breadth of learning opportunities as other pupils. In most establishments, pupils were consulted about when it was appropriate for them to be withdrawn from the work of their class group for individual work. For example, in most secondary schools, staff worked hard to ensure that pupils had time for individual support work with the teacher of the deaf, but could also choose which subjects they wanted to study. However, some secondary schools always withdrew the pupil from a second language without consultation with the pupils involved, based on the assumption that an additional language would be too challenging for deaf pupils.
In one area visited, deaf pupils had a positive experience in studying an additional language and were achieving well. The specific focus on grammar and syntax helped them to understand the differing language structures of English and BSL.
In classes or units with mainstream schools, pupils often studied core subjects within the specialist provision, so that sufficient attention was focused, on, for example, specialised approaches to developing literacy. Close links and good joint planning ensured most pupils also benefited from inclusion in mainstream classes for other curricular areas. In one specialist deaf school which had strong links with its local mainstream school, a liaison teacher was employed to ensure that specialist staff and mainstream staff had formal opportunities to plan together. In this provision, the specialist and mainstream primary school timetables ran in parallel to ensure continuity. In other settings with split placements, some pupils experienced lack of coherence and continuity in their curriculum due to insufficient attention to joint planning and monitoring of their overall experience.
Where pupils attended mainstream schools full time and were supported by visiting teachers of the deaf, joint planning and regular liaison were generally well established. These arrangements ensured staff could plan future outcomes and inform learners what was coming next in the programmes being studied. Teachers of the deaf and support staff prepared pupils for lessons, for example, through teaching some of the vocabulary in advance of the class lesson and ensuring that they understood the aims of lessons and activities.
Pupils who accessed the curriculum using BSL or Sign-supported English (SSE) had support to do so when they needed it. Pupils were very positive about the levels of support they received. Some pupils benefited from support from staff with very good levels of signing and interpreting skills. However, in some areas there were difficulties in recruiting and training staff with the level of skills required. In some classes, the support person interpreted an unhelpfully simplified version of what the teacher said, and did not always ensure that other pupils’ answers and discussion were also interpreted for the deaf pupil.
Most schools had made good progress in addressing barriers to accessing the curriculum arising from the physical environment. Increasingly, education authorities were installing soundfield systems10 in classrooms, and areas such as halls which were used for assemblies. There were also good examples of schools and authorities working together to improve the quality of acoustics throughout the school where there were deaf pupils. However, in other settings the approach to improving acoustics was piecemeal, and while some classrooms had been improved, including the base for deaf pupils, other classrooms remained affected by noise and reverberation.
Within some establishments, deaf pupils experienced well-planned adaptations to the curriculum to meet their specific needs. In a small number of schools, Deaf Studies (the study of deaf language, culture and community) was taught as part of the curriculum, leading to the achievement of National Qualifications (NQs) at Intermediate level 1 and 2.
One specialist deaf school had a very well developed Deaf Studies curriculum which was valued highly by the deaf pupils.
Deaf pupils studied BSL as part of the curriculum to Council for Advancement of Deaf People (CACDP) levels 1 and 2 in a small number of schools. A few deaf pupils were taught the grammar of BSL on an individual basis to meet their needs. In some areas, pupils using BSL had access to good quality resources in BSL. For example, school reading schemes had been produced in a signed video format. BSL glossaries of curricular signs were also being utilised in some areas. However, overall, most pupils whose first language was BSL did not have sufficient access to formal teaching of the language.
Deaf pupils were helped to improve their skills for independent living through specific learning programmes which focused on strategies to improve their ability to communicate when they did not have access to their customary support. Pupils benefited particularly from programmes which went beyond the school, and helped them develop skills in real life situations in the community.
One secondary school used a deaf tutor to support pupils to carry out life skill tasks, such as shopping or going to the bank.
Many deaf pupils had access to a broader curriculum through participation in out-of-school learning activities. Support and encouragement from staff and their willingness to support pupils’ initial involvement were instrumental in achieving this. In some areas, local authorities provided support as necessary and facilitated flexible transport arrangements. In other areas, pupils stated that they were unable to attend activities of their choice after school due to lack of transport or lack of support to help them communicate in this setting.
To achieve success for deaf pupils we should aim to have:
Teaching for effective learning
In schools and classes for the deaf, relationships between staff and pupils were friendly and supportive. Whether schools were predominantly for children who used BSL or for those using spoken English, pupils, parents and staff were clear about their school’s approaches and values. Within these settings, deaf culture was valued and close links were made with the deaf community.
In the specialist resources, most teachers were skilled in using approaches which were effective in meeting the range of needs of deaf pupils in their classes. They focused effectively on developing communication. Whether using natural aural approaches, BSL or SSE, teachers were skilled in giving pupils confidence and encouraging them to persist in making themselves understood in a range of situations. Teachers at the early years made good use of imaginative play to develop vocabulary, and at all stages teachers made good use of a range of contexts, including real life situations in the community, to encourage the development of language. However, at times, within specialist classes for deaf pupils, very small classes made it difficult for teachers to ensure a range of experiences, in particular, cooperative work with other pupils. Too often pupils related primarily to the teacher, or were following individual programmes of work supported by an adult.
In mainstream schools, relationships between deaf pupils and staff were positive overall and contributed to the development of a positive climate for learning. In particular, deaf pupils valued relationships with specialist support staff, including teachers of the deaf and learning assistants in mainstream schools.
Many teachers regularly adapted materials and teaching approaches to support deaf pupils in their classes. For example, some teachers in mainstream schools incorporated the teaching of signing into their whole-class teaching. They reported that all pupils benefited from this experience. Signing helped to develop communication skills in some hearing pupils as well as their deaf classmates.
One classroom teacher, aware that deaf pupils are often confused by the meanings of idioms, incorporated specific study of idiom into her class lessons.
Some teachers were beginning to use alternative approaches to teaching reading and writing to deaf pupils, which recognised their restricted access to the English language. It was too early to evaluate the impact of these approaches.
With the help of the authority’s early literacy development officers, one school for the deaf had adapted an approach to teaching early literacy using a system of visual phonics. This had had a positive impact on the children’s reading and writing skills.
All schools with deaf pupils had provided some level of Deaf Awareness training for all staff, often including janitorial and support staff. However, these training opportunities were often limited, and some mainstream teachers did not have sufficient understanding of the needs of their deaf pupils. For example, they did not always appreciate how difficult it was for deaf pupils to concentrate in a classroom setting. Subject and class teachers in mainstream schools varied in the extent of their understanding and ability to plan a range of learning and teaching approaches to ensure that deaf pupils learned successfully. In some contexts where, for example, deaf pupils had been attending the school for many years, teachers responded well to the needs of deaf pupils. They consistently checked comprehension, and carefully planned how to introduce new and complex vocabulary. In partnership with teachers of the deaf and learning assistants they had developed visual material to support their teaching. In some classes, deaf pupils had difficulty in following what was being said in class and relied almost wholly on re-teaching in tutorial settings with a teacher of the deaf. Frequently they could not hear, or did not have interpreted for them, the answers given by other pupils. Deaf pupils in hearing classes experienced difficulty in participating in group discussions. Teachers did not regularly plan classroom discussions to take account of the needs of the deaf pupils and to help compensate for their difficulties in participating.
To achieve success for deaf pupils we should aim to have:
Meeting learning needs
Most services and schools had a clear commitment in policy and practice to identifying and meeting the linguistic needs of pupils on an individual basis, and to ensuring these were regularly reviewed with the pupil and parents. However, due to the diversity of deaf pupils’ needs, providing what each individual pupil required had become increasing challenging.
Making decisions about the most appropriate way to support language development for a deaf child is always difficult, and is often an emotive issue for parents. The publication Informed choice, families and deaf children11 although not specifically for a Scottish context, gives a very helpful overview of the issues. In the research for Informed choice, parents identified choosing their child’s language/communication mode as one of the most important decisions they had to make. A long-held view that a choice needs to be made at an early stage between developing spoken English or BSL as the child’s first language has put pressure on parents. However, a number of services and individual schools had adopted a more flexible approach, and recognised that choices were not mutually exclusive and that pupils’ linguistic needs should be regularly reviewed. This approach is supported by research which has demonstrated clearly that:
"These children’s rapid development of spoken language suggests that having access to language during the first or second year of life regardless of modality, can provide a base on which skills in a different modality can be built."12
In some areas parents were encouraged to learn to sign, as well as speak, to their very young children, and at the pre-school stage all deaf children were taught to sign. Children could then switch between approaches or modalities and decide for themselves whether signing or oral communication was most effective for them.
All pupils with moderate to profound hearing loss had been assessed by specialist professionals working with them. The professionals involved included health and educational audiologists, speech and language therapists and teachers of the deaf. Hospital consultants shared information with other professionals and contributed to review meetings and assessment of pupils’ needs. Educational audiologists worked effectively with health professionals and teachers of the deaf to identify and monitor pupils’ audiological needs. Almost all pupils were supplied with high quality audiological aids, which were well monitored by teachers of the deaf, educational audiologists or others trained to undertake this function. In most areas there were good arrangements for ensuring pupils’ aids were repaired or replaced quickly when required, but on occasions pupils were left without aids for short periods of time.
In some areas, an individual educational psychologist had developed expertise in deaf education, and offered a specialised service for schools, parents and children. This was particularly beneficial for the process of assessment, and when making decisions about how children’s needs could be best met.
Pupils who had been fitted with cochlear implants were well supported and monitored by the outreach services from the implant centres, working in partnership with local services. Overall, staff had a good understanding of the needs of pupils with implants, and the most effective approaches to supporting individual children, many of whom were progressing well in school. However, further training is still required, particularly for non-specialist staff, so that they fully understand the implications of the impact of the implant on the child’s ability to hear and understand speech.
Pupils in specialist provision for deaf pupils were well supported by speech and language therapists, but in some areas, pupils who attended their local schools did not have access to speech and language therapy. Within a number of services, teachers of the deaf had developed assessment materials which they used effectively to assess and monitor pupils’ language development. In a few services or schools, teachers monitored pupils’ language development by filming them at regular intervals.
In some areas, where BSL was the most appropriate medium for children’s communication and learning, both the quality of their experience and their progress were limited by the lack of communicators and teachers with suitably high levels of BSL competence to provide effective access to the curriculum. Some pupils said that they did not always understand their interpreter or were not always understood by them. A number of teachers and communicators were well trained and experienced, for example, having achieved the CACDP level 3 (advanced level) BSL skills, or had interpreter qualifications. Some teachers of the deaf and communicators had only achieved CACDP BSL level 1 (elementary level) or were working towards it. In some services all teachers of the deaf were qualified to CACDP stage 2 (Intermediate level). A number of services and schools stated that they experienced problems in recruiting and retaining skilled staff and providing the necessary training to develop signing skills among staff. The skills and experience of communicators were not always reflected in their salaries and grading, and authorities varied in their practice in this. The lack of staff skilled to an appropriate level had an impact on the choices available to pupils and on the effectiveness with which their needs were met.
Many pupils used lipreading and residual hearing and, supplemented by some signed support. They also communicated using voice augmented by some sign or gesture. In most settings, support for pupils using auditory-oral approaches was provided effectively, and their individual needs were well supported. Pupils were encouraged to use all available means of communication, and to request clarification and repetition when necessary to ensure understanding. However, a small number of services and schools, as policy, did not enable pupils to access the curriculum through mixed approaches. They did not encourage the use of signing to supplement and enhance pupils’ communication skills. In such settings, pupils’ learning experiences were shaped by policies rather than full exploration of their individual needs and personalised planning to meet these needs. As a result, some pupils found themselves reaching the end of their education still experiencing difficulties in making themselves understood clearly, having difficulty in communicating with their friends and without access to alternative means of communication.
All deaf pupils had a high level of access arrangements and support to meet their needs. Pupils who used signing as their principal means of communication almost always had access arrangements in their classes when they needed it. Very small classes in specialist provision and good use of support staff ensured high levels of support for pupils. In the best arrangements, pupils were involved effectively with teachers in planning and making decisions about the support which would best meet their needs. For some pupils, this involved discussing with staff in which of their classes they wanted to have additional support. In the most effective provision, staff had regular detailed discussions with pupils about whether they wanted interpreting, sign support, or a mixture of approaches in classes. This approach helped pupils to take responsibility for their own learning. Pupils valued the support from teachers of the deaf and support assistants to help them be actively involved in learning in class.
Recent research has documented that many deaf young people value meeting other deaf young people (NDCS 2001). Some local authorities provided opportunities for deaf pupils attending different schools to meet on a regular basis. This had a positive impact on their self-esteem and also supported the development of appropriate communication. Most pupils found this helpful and supportive, though a small number were not interested in meeting other deaf pupils. However, some authorities did not provide deaf pupils with opportunities to meet as it was felt that this went against the philosophy of inclusion. As a result the needs of deaf pupils were ignored through an interpretation of inclusion which ignored individual needs.
Some services and schools had good links with the deaf community and supported pupils who wanted to become involved with it. For some pupils and their parents these links with the deaf community were important. They helped reduce feelings of isolation, and provided positive role models for adult life. Deaf teachers, deaf support assistants and visiting sign language tutors employed in specialist schools for the deaf and in some mainstream schools also provided valuable role models for deaf pupils. However, staff did not always understand or value the potential impact of deaf role models on pupils’ motivation and self-esteem and some pupils did not have sufficient access to deaf adults or other deaf children, both BSL users and those who used voice.
Deaf Awareness was frequently incorporated into the personal and social education programme (PSE) for all pupils in mainstream schools. Deaf pupils in some mainstream schools reported that their hearing peers were helpful in enabling better access to classroom learning, as well as facilitating inclusion in peer groups within school.
It was the practice, in one school visited, for S1 deaf pupils to have "hearing buddies" to encourage the development of better communication both ways.
In some settings Deaf Awareness was delivered by senior deaf pupils. Sign language classes for pupils and staff were effective in encouraging greater understanding and respect for deaf pupils and helped deaf pupils to be included in the life of the school. In a small number of schools certificated BSL courses were an option for all pupils in the school.
To achieve success for deaf pupils we should aim to have:
Expectations and promoting achievement
In some areas, teachers, particularly teachers of the deaf, had very high expectations of their pupils. They had a positive view of deafness and a determination to support pupils to do well. They provided a high level of pastoral support, building pupils’ confidence and motivation, as well as supporting their learning, and preparing them well for assessments. However, there were also teachers who had lower expectations of their deaf pupils, and did not always expect them to achieve in line with national expectations. Teachers were not always clear in their assessments about whether pupils’ progress was in line with their potential, and did not always look closely enough at underlying reasons for underperformance.
Most deaf pupils had individualised educational programmes (IEPs) in place, with agreed targets. These ensured pupils had regular interactions with their teachers about their progress. However, pupils were not always clear what they needed to do to achieve these targets. They were not sufficiently involved in discussions with their teachers about what they had understood in lessons and how they might be able to develop further.
Effective assessment procedures, including well-planned Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) examination arrangements which met the needs of individual pupils, contributed to good outcomes for pupils. Where pupils had opportunities to undertake examination practice under special arrangements, for example, using signed questions and signed responses, they were more confident and thought they did better in their examinations.
Few schools or local authorities had addressed issues relating to raising the attainment levels of deaf pupils effectively. Because of the small numbers of pupils involved, it was difficult for authorities to identify patterns of performance. Some authority services did track pupils’ progress, but did not use the information in a focused way to ensure progress against shared high expectations. The evidence from the ADPS research suggests that the progress of individual deaf pupils should be monitored more closely, barriers to progress identified and action taken to improve learning where necessary.
Pupils who had well-developed language skills, either in English or BSL, and could understand what was being said in class, were most likely to be achieving well. In the most successful examples, this was a result of very well-planned and focused approaches to developing language, such as the use of signing to improve the development of English in children with cochlear implants, and the adaptation of early literacy approaches for deaf pupils. High quality interpretation for pupils had a positive impact on achievement. The increasing use of technology to enhance hearing had made a positive impact for some pupils as it has given them better access to communication in the classroom.
To achieve success for deaf pupils we should aim to have:
Partnerships with parents
Overall, parents were positive about the information they received about provision for deaf children in their area. They found discussions with educational psychologists and specialist staff helpful and informative, and thought that these specialists were committed to finding the best arrangements for their children. In some areas parents thought that the range of provision and choices available to them was too limited. They felt that professionals wanted children to fit in to the provision available rather than explore the full range of options available.
Staff working with deaf pupils, whether in special provisions, mainstream schools or as peripatetic support services, took active steps to encourage parents to engage with their children’s learning. In most areas, relationships with parents were productive, and in many schools partnerships between parents and teachers were very close. Schools and services recognised the important contribution parents made to learning. Parents found home-school diaries, which were used extensively with younger deaf pupils, helped them to understand the role they could play in supporting and improving their children’s learning.
Schools and services also engaged with parents informally, explaining curricular approaches in school, and the approaches being used to support children’s learning. Videos of curricular signs and reading books available in sign were initiatives which supported home learning. Increasingly parents were finding out more about deaf education by attending training courses alongside staff. However, most parents stated they would like more information about their children’s curriculum and how they could support their children.
Parents stated that they would benefit from receiving reports on their children some time before a review meeting to allow them to digest their contents beforehand. Some parents stated that professionals were regularly absent from their children’s review meetings. Others suggested that too many professionals were present at review meetings.
While parents were routinely given information about individualised educational programmes for their children, not all were sufficiently involved in contributing their views on appropriate learning targets. Some parents stated that their views were listened to and given due weight, while others felt that their opinions were not valued sufficiently. Although parents could discuss the progress their children were making towards individual targets, they did not always have a clear view of how well they were progressing in relation to national expectations.
To achieve success for deaf pupils we should aim to have: