Joint memorandum submitted by the National
Deaf Children's Society (NDCS) and the Royal National Institute
for the Deaf (RNID)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— There is no reason for any deaf child
to achieve any less than their hearing peer with similar abilities
at school. Yet deaf children have been under achieving for a generation
and evidence points to failings in the inspection regime as being
a critical part of this problem. Ofsted has a duty to ensure that
schools meet the needs of all pupils but is currently failing
to discharge this responsibility for deaf children.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Royal National Institute for the Deaf
(RNID) is the largest charity representing the UK's 9 million
deaf and hard of hearing people. The National Deaf Children's
Society (NDCS) is the national charity dedicated to creating a
world without barriers for deaf children and young people.
2. MAIN POINTS
2.1 Until very recently, very little data has
been available on the educational achievements of deaf children.
In March 2007, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
for Education and Skills stated that 32.9% of deaf children achieve
five GCSEs at grades A to C, compared to a national average of
57.1%.[13]
On this basis, deaf children are 42% less likely to hit this benchmark.
Annex A provides further detail of data issued by DCSF. There
is also evidence that deaf children are more likely to experience
mental health problems and child abuse.[14]
2.2 Ofsted has taken substantial and welcome
action to improve provision for disabled children. However, we
would like to see Ofsted play a greater role in tackling the attainment
gap between deaf children and their hearing peers. We would also
like Ofsted to play a greater role in ensuring the five Every
Child Matters outcomes are achieved and in tackling other issues
that disadvantage deaf children. There is evidence to suggest
that Ofsted's ability to play this role is undermined by a lack
of awareness and expertise on deafness by some Ofsted inspectors.
2.3 Specific issues and our recommendations
for action are summarised in the table below. Most of points made
are specific to deaf children, but a number could apply to other
disabled children.
Issue 1—Enjoying and Achieving:
Lack of understanding and rigour when assessing the
quality of education provision for deaf children.
Evidence
| Recommendation |
The RNID report, At the heart of inclusion: the role of specialist support for deaf pupils (2005),[15] interviewed heads of support service and hearing impairment teams in ten local authorities. Heads reported disappointment in the rigour of inspection of schools with specialist hearing support units mentioning:
— Lack of expertise in or experience of deafness on the inspection team.
— Failure to observe teachers of the deaf either in the base or in the mainstream classroom.
— Failure to provide inspectors who had skills in British Sign Language (BSL) or BSL interpreters for teams inspecting BSL provision.
— Lack of interest among inspectors in the deaf pupils as members of the school.
The NDCS is aware of an inspection report of a secondary school in East of England in 2006 where provision for deaf children was assessed to be very good. This may have applied to the skills of staff but the hearing support unit was located in a mobile classroom where the acoustic qualities were below the standards required by deaf children. Another inspection of a school in London in 2008 reported that pupils were "very well catered for" even although there was not a qualified teacher in charge of the specialist unit and the level of specialist teaching support was below required standards.
We do not believe sufficient reference is made to benchmarking information on provision for and the attainment of deaf children to ensure judgements on provision and educational attainment and progress are secure. For example, the dataset used for the inspection of children's services has not included data, available from the school census, on the attainment of deaf children or children with other types of special educational needs. In contrast, the dataset does include information on the attainment of children in care and children from minority ethnic groups.
| All inspectors need a basic understanding of good practice in teaching deaf children. In Scotland, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education (HMIe) have developed guidance and best practice for working with deaf children, as well as standards for inspectors when assessing provision children.[16] We recommend that Ofsted produce similar guidance in consultation with the British Association for Teachers of the Deaf (BATOD).
Greater use needs to be made on data on the attainment of deaf children to ensure inspection judgements on the progress and attainment of deaf pupils are robust and secure. Information needs to be made available on the ratio of specialist qualified teachers of the deaf. Ofsted should ask questions of local authorities where the proportion of deaf children placed at school action plus or with statements of special education needs is 10% below the average, as this could indicate that some deaf children are not being identified or supported in that area.
|
| |
Issue 2—Staying Safe:
The need to ensure local authorities are complying with government
recommendations. The need to make better use of data on performance
and provision to ensure judgements on safeguarding arrangements
for deaf children are secure.
Evidence | Recommendation
|
As deaf children are far more vulnerable to abuse, the Department for Health recommended in the 2005 Report, Mental Health and Deafness—Towards Equity and Access,[17] that Area Child Protection Committees:
"review their local procedures, policies and training programmes to ensure that the needs of deaf children are recognised and met".
NDCS has yet to identify an ACPC (now called Local Safeguarding Children's Boards) that has undertaken this review. However, to our knowledge, this has not been raised as an issue by Ofsted in its assessment of any local authority's performance.
| The Annual Performance Assessment process and/or inspection of local authority areas should check compliance with this government recommendation to ensure a rigorous review has been undertaken in every area
|
We do not believe there is sufficient information to enable inspectors to assess the quality of provision for deaf or other disabled children in this area. For example, the dataset used for inspections does not include information on the number of deaf children or disabled children who require a child protection plan, who are looked after,
or access to specialist care facilities.
| Greater use needs to be made of data relating to the safeguarding of deaf and disabled children to inform judgements about the quality of provision and ensure the judgements are secure.
|
| |
Issue 3—Being Healthy:
The need to make better use of use of existing quality audits
and information to ensure judgements on the arrangements for deaf
children are secure.
Evidence | Recommendation
|
The New Born Hearing Screening Programme (NBHS) has been fully operating in England since 2006, accompanied by a programme of independent quality audits commission by the Department of Health. These audits provide evidence of the quality of care for vulnerable children and effectiveness of multi-agency working. However, there is no reference to these audits in Ofsted's "Grade Descriptors" for assessing the quality of provision or documentation setting out arrangements for the Annual Performance Assessment.
| The NBHS Quality Audits should be used as part of the evidence in assessing the quality of provision.
|
The ability to hear and communicate is vital to a child's social, emotional and educational development. Delay in treatment will have an adverse consequence on a child's development, yet we are unaware of Ofsted considering waiting times to have ear moulds fitted, hearing aids and access to cochlear implants when assessing the quality of healthcare provision in an area.
| Ofsted should make use of waiting times data for children when making judgements on the overall level of provision.
|
| |
Issue 4—Service Management/Leadership:
Ofsted makes judgements on service management and leadership in
schools and public services. There appears to be a lack of focus
on how local authorities, health services and schools are discharging
their statutory Disability Equality Duties and Equal Opportunity
Duties with regard to deaf and other disabled children.
Evidence | Recommendation
|
There is no reference to how well local authorities are discharging their Disability Equality Duties, the quality of Disability Equality Schemes, Accessibility Strategies or whether disability impact statements are produced in the Service Management section of Ofsted's "Grade Descriptors" or in the guidance on the Annual Performance Assessment process. Neither does it appear from reading school inspection reports that much attention is focused on how well schools discharge their disability equality duties.
| Annual Performance Assessment and inspection of services for children need to consider how well service providers are discharging their disability equality duties, with reference to national guidance on effective practice.
|
RNID and NDCS have encountered anecdotal evidence suggesting that accessibility strategies tend to focus only on physical accessibility of schools, rather than the acoustic environment, despite the importance of good quality acoustics for deaf children.
| Ofsted, in particular, should examine accessibility strategies to ensure that acoustic environments are of the necessary high quality for deaf children.
|
| |
Annex A
DATA ON EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT OF DEAF PUPILS IN
ENGLAND
"We know that the attainment of hearing impaired children
falls below the national average. Only 32.9%. of hearing impaired
children achieve five GCSEs at grades A to C, compared with a
national average of 57.1%".
On this basis, deaf children are 42% less likely to get five
GCSEs at grades A to C.
Statement by Parmjit Dhanda, Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for Education and Skills, March 2007.[18]
Since March 2007, the Department for Children, Schools and
Families has provided NDCS with the following data:[19]
Table 1
ENGLAND—EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT OF DEAF PUPILS AT
KEY STAGE 2 BY SUBJECT (2006)
Percentage of children at the end of their primary school gaining Level 4 or above in their Standard Assessment Test for:
|
Deaf pupils |
All pupils
|
The attainment gap in
relative terms
|
— English |
47% | 79% | -41%
|
| — Maths | 49%
| 76% | -36% |
| — Science | 63%
| 87% | -28% |
| |
| |
Table 2
ENGLAND—EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT OF YEAR 6 DEAF PUPILS
IN ENGLISH KEY STAGE 2 (2006)
| % not attaining
Level 3
| % attaining
Level 3 | % attaining
Level 4+
|
All pupils | 7%
| 14% | 79% |
| Pupils with hearing impairment at School Action Plus or with statement
| 28% | 24% | 47%
|
| Relative difference | +300%
| +71% | -41% |
| |
| |
Table 3
ENGLAND—EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT OF DEAF PUPILS AT
KEY STAGE 4 (2006)
| Eligible pupils
| % achieving |
| | 5 A* to C
| 5 A* to C
including E&M |
Any Passes |
England All Pupils | 593,786
| 57.0 | 43.8 | 97.3
|
| England All Deaf Pupils | 1,100
| 39.0 | 26.0 | 96.0
|
| Relative difference from national average |
| -31.6% | -40.6%
| -1.3% |
April 2008
|
| | |
|
13
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070306/halltext/70306h0011.htm Back
14
Department for Health (2005): Mental Health and Deafness-Towards
Equity and Access; Best Practice Guidance. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4103995 Back
15
http://www.rnid.org.uk/VirtualContent/84923/Heart_of_Inclusion.pdf Back
16
Count us in: Achieving Success for Deaf Pupils. Available
at: http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/asfdp-02.html Back
17
Department for Health (2005): Mental Health and Deafness-Towards
Equity and Access; Best Practice Guidance. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4103995 Back
18
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070306/halltext/70306h0011.htm Back
19
Data based on Pupil Led Annual School Census Returns. The data
refers only to pupils placed at School Action Plus and those with
statements where hearing impairment is the prime type of special
educational needs. Data on the attainment of deaf children placed
at School Action of the SEN Code of Practice is unavailable as
is data on children placed in independent schools. Back
|
