The National Deaf Children’s Society

A Review of Northern Ireland specific Special Educational Needs Materials: Parental Perceptions of Current Provision

Una O’Connor Children and Youth Programme UNESCO CentreMarch 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This research report is a review of NDCS Northern Ireland specific Special Educational

Needs (SEN) materials in light of the proposed Department of Education’s SEN Bill and

Code of Practice which was expected to receive Royal Assent by March 2014. The

purpose of the review is to gauge parents’ perceptions of the SEN materials currently

used by NDCS and the effectiveness of those materials in supporting and informing

decisions about their deaf child’s education. It is intended that the findings of the review

will highlight the usefulness of existing resources and identify options for improvement,

following the potential passing of the aforementioned Bill. The review has been

undertaken within the NDCS Caring and Sharing project and funded by the National

Lottery through Big Lottery Fund.

As an organisation, NDCS is committed to creating a world without barriers for deaf

children and young people by representing their interests and campaigning for their

rights from birth until they reach independence1. SEN policy is undergoing a period of

significant legislative change in Northern Ireland2. The on-going Review of SEN and

Inclusion, including the forthcoming publication of the SEN Bill and accompanying

regulations and revised Code of Practice, will have collective implications for all children

and young people identified as having a special educational need. More specifically, the

proposed changes have highlighted the potentially negative impact on provision for deaf

children, with consequences for their educational outcomes.

The rationale for this review originated from an evaluation of a Caring and Sharing event

in November 2013, where parents expressed opinions suggestive of the fact that NDCS

was their main source of information on the statementing process, as well as concerns

on proposed legislative reform as well as uncertainty on options to inform and protect

educational provision for their deaf child. The findings from the evaluation were

subsequently used to formulate these objectives3:

1. To conduct a review of NDCS: NI existing resources and synthesise a

summary report of the information contained.

1 http://www.ndcs.org.uk 2 http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/support-and-development-2/special_educational_needs_pg/review_of_ special_educational_needs_and_inclusion.htm3 Original NDCS tender November 2013

2

2. To evaluate parents’ perceptions of the level of service they are currently

receiving from NDCS in terms of advice and resources to facilitate

informed choices about their deaf child’s education.

3. To investigate parents’ concerns about the forthcoming SEN review and

their perceived requirements for additional support or information.

4. To assess changes NDCS: NI would need to implement to their current

resources and support provision in response to parents’ feedback and in

anticipation of statutory changes.

It is anticipated that the findings of the review will inform any future developments and

dissemination of NDCS Northern Ireland specific special educational needs materials to

support parents of deaf children. Additionally, it is anticipated that parental feedback

will provide valuable insight from a key constituent group around the statutory changes

proposed in the SEN review.

The review is undertaken with due regard to three individual, yet inter-connected, policy

circumstances:

1. The Review of SEN and Inclusion has identified a series of proposed changes

that are likely to radically transform the nature of SEN provision in Northern

Ireland. Amongst these, new criteria to streamline the statementing process

and the absence of any statutory responsibility on the quantification and

specification of specialist support will have implications for the educational

provision of deaf children and young people.

2. The Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order4 came

into effect in September 2005. The Order sought to increase the rights of

children SEN to attend mainstream schools and, for the first time, introduced

disability discrimination laws for the whole education system. Additionally,

parents were to benefit from new services that included access to advice and

information, assistance in the informal resolution of disputes and greater rights

of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST).

4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2005/1117/contents/made

3

3. The Department of Education (DE) has stated its commitment to inclusion and

has produced a resource file for schools5 intended to enhance capacity building

amongst staff through the dissemination of effective practices. Although

inclusion is endorsed as the preferred option for the majority of children and

young people, the extent to which proposed legislative changes will enhance or

hinder this is less certain.

2.0 THE POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION

International standards, grounded in the principles of non-discrimination, equality of

opportunity, respect for difference and full participation, have shaped access to, and

enjoyment of, education (UN, 2011; CRC, 2006). The right to education is an automatic

assumption for the majority of children, although for pupils with SEN it can be a more

ambiguous process where the language, policy and legislation of education provision

has alternately strengthened and diminished their educational options (CRC, 2013;

Prunty, 2011; Lundy and Kilpatrick, 2006).

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child6 (UNCRC) and the United

Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities7 (UNCRPD) recognise the

rights of children and young people with SEN, including the right to an effective

education. The provisions of the UNCRC are framed to realise the full potential of all

children and young people and so provide a useful benchmark to monitor the extent to

which the fundamental rights of children and young people with SEN are met (CDSA,

2009). The UNCRPD, although not explicitly child-centred, contains provisions relating

to access to education for children with disabilities, including a requirement on States to

eradicate barriers to inclusion through a process of reasonable accommodation (UN,

2013). Although current legislation is informed by the UNCRC and UNCRPD, the extent

to which government policy and the school system fulfil the rights of these pupils is

subject to on-going debate.

5http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/support-and-development-2/special_educational_needs_pg/support-children- with-sen.htm 6 Ratified by the United Kingdom in 19917 Ratified by the United Kingdom in 2009

4

2.2 CURRENT POLICY AND PROVISION

Legislation in Northern Ireland for children with SEN is contained in the Education (NI)

Order (1996) as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability (NI) Order

(2005a) (SENDO) and supplemented by guidance documents including a Code of

Practice for the identification and assessment of pupils with SEN (DE, 2005b; 1998).

Together, they outline the statutory functions schools and Education and Library Boards

(ELBs) as well as health and social services agencies must follow when making a

decision on provision for children with SEN.

Current provision for children with SEN adheres to standardised procedures and

timescales across five stages, ranging from school-based action (Stages 1-3) to

collaboration between the school and the ELB to consider the need for a statutory

assessment and, potentially, a statutory statement (Stages 4-5). The process confers

certain legal responsibilities onto the ELBs that include: identification of a Named Board

Officer; provision of a copy of the proposed statement to parents; specification of the

special education provision to be made to meet the child’s special educational needs;

the educational resources needed to provide equal opportunities for learning; the

financial requirements to provide those resources; arrangements for monitoring progress

in meeting targets for the child’s progress; and arrangements for reviewing the child’s

progress on a regular basis (Article 16(3)(b) of Education (NI) Order 1996). Additionally,

ELBs are encouraged to draft ‘clear, unambiguous statements’ in accessible language

that can be understood by parents and other non-professionals (DE, 1998, p.43) and

that provisions ‘… should normally be specific, detailed and quantified (in terms, for

example, of hours of ancillary or specialist teaching support)’ (DE, 1998, p.44). All

statements should be reviewed at least annually; as well as a progress report completed

by the school it should also, as far as possible, incorporate the views of parents. For

older children, completion of a Transition Plan that identifies a coherent pathway into

adult life is a requirement of the first annual review after his/her 14th birthday.

2.3 THE REVIEW OF SEN AND INCLUSION

The on-going review of SEN and inclusion in Northern Ireland is intended to ‘… ensure

that the child is placed firmly at the centre of the processes for identification,

5

assessment, provision and review’ (DE, 2012, p.2). The main proposed changes include

a reduction in the current SEN framework from five stages to three levels of support; a

reduction in the time taken for statutory assessments; the re-definition of statements as

co-ordinated support plans (CSPs); a two-step annual review process; and a duty on

Boards of Governors to put in place a Personal Learning Plan (PLP) for all pupils with

SEN. Integral to these changes is a commitment to early intervention, reduced

bureaucracy, transparency and accountability for resources and outcomes (ibid).

Whilst some of the proposals have been welcomed, there has been criticism that other

suggested changes could be a retrograde step for the rights of pupils with SEN (CLC,

2012). For example, the reduction in the number of statements issued, the introduction

of a new category of Multiple and Complex Needs and Co-ordinated Support Plans,

along with uncertainty on access to classroom assistance were highlighted as issues of

concern (CLC, 2012; CDSA, 2009). More specifically, it is argued that deaf children and

young people should be included in any new threshold of a statement, that there should

be a statutory and enforceable requirement to specify and quantify the level of specialist

support and that a public register for SENDIST decisions should be created (NDCS,

2013). Although some concerns have been addressed, there are still some issues

pertaining to (but not exclusive to) deaf children and young people. These include

quantified and specified provision based on need rather than resource availability;

refining the status of deafness to a severe educational need; and commitment to

statutory transition support (NDCS, 2013).

2.4 INCLUSION

The philosophy and practice of inclusion have been shaped by the principles of

advocacy, accountability, social justice, equality and anti-discrimination so that it is

endorsed nationally and internationally as the optimum basis for the full enjoyment of

rights (UN, 2011; WHO, 2011). Research confirms that many countries have sought to

make their provision of mainstream education more inclusive (Inclusion Europe 2009;

OECD, 2005), a process that involves initiating change, reforming administrative

structures and mobilising resources if schools are to fulfil their capacity to effectively

meet the needs of children and young people within legislative frameworks (UN, 2011).

6

In Northern Ireland, the management of inclusion is framed around the development of

‘… cultures, policies and practices to include pupils’ (DE, 2011, p.5). This reflects the

code of professional conduct and core teaching competencies (GTCNI, 2007) which

recognise that the learning needs of pupils are best achieved through mutual support

and collaboration from all educational partners. Guidance material on capacity building

for inclusion has been produced8 that outlines how schools can ensure equal

educational opportunities for pupils with SEN. This includes emphasis on training and

professional for senior management, teachers, classroom assistants and other

support/ancillary staff and is based on the principle that the school changes to meet the

needs of all the children it serves.

Nationally and internationally, research has highlighted contrasting perspectives on

inclusive practice with the evidence suggesting a series of challenges, inter alia, limited

teacher training (Winter, 2006), limited specialised support (Abbott, 2007), poor

academic progress (O’Donnell, 2003); variable teacher expectation (O’Gorman and

Drudy, 2010), poor co-ordination of services (Flatman Watson, 2010) and parental

frustration (Nugent, 2007). In contrast, literature on the benefits of inclusion has

demonstrated a range of positive outcomes that include social and educational

acceptance (Staff Commission for ELBs, 2010); the promotion of positive attitudes

(Meegan and MacPhail, 2006) and increasing options for teacher education (O’Gorman,

2007).

2.5 THE ROLE OF PARENTS

Parents possess unique knowledge and information about their child. Whilst it is

acknowledged that they should be seen as partners in the educational process, parental

voices have been an under-represented dimension of the special education research

agenda (DCSF, 2009; Caikler et al., 2007). The rights of parents are outlined in policy

and legislation (DE, 1998, 2005a) which states that ‘… schools should seek at all times

to foster the active participation and involvement of parents, offering encouragement to

recognise their own responsibilities towards their child and emphasising the benefits of

working in partnership with the school and others involved’ (DE, 1998, p.9). Legislation

has helped to strengthen parental rights; it has enabled them to identify an educational 8 http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/support-and-development-2/special_educational_needs_pg/support-children-with-sen.htm

7

placement of their choice and to challenge or appeal any decisions made in relation to

the statutory assessment and statement, the annual review and transition plan. Under

the provisions of the SENDO, parents can appeal decisions informally through the

Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Service (DARS) or more formally through the Special

Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) and judicial review. There are

concerns, however, that some parents will lose their right to appeal if the reduction in the

number of statements is endorsed as part of the SEN Review.

The law on SEN has been successfully used by families to contest the obligations of

ELBs in matters of educational provision (SENAC, 2009), including early intervention

and inappropriate sharing of classroom assistance (CLC, 2012). Most recently, the

NDCS, the Children’s Law Centre and SENAC have been variously involved in

challenging the quantification and specification of support written into statements,

including provision for children with a hearing impairment (CDSA, 2014). For deaf

children, the quantification and specification of support (in terms of classroom or other

ancillary support or specialist resources) has been a recurrent issue (CDSA, 2014) and

is deemed to ‘… undermine the protections and rights built into the SEN system for

parents to be consulted and the right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and

Disability Tribunal’ (CDSA, 2014).

3.0 NDCS ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT

The NDCS is a UK-wide charity, established in 1944 by a group of parents committed to

‘... further in every way possible, the provision of full modern education for deaf children’.

Parents remain central to the organisation which continues to ensure that deaf children

and young people and their families are supported to make informed decisions on

matters affecting them – in educational terms, but also physically, socially and

emotionally.

The over-arching mission of NDCS is to remove the barriers to the achievement of deaf

children throughout the world. This is manifest in three strategic aims:

1. To empower deaf children, young people and their families to determine what

happens in their lives and shape the services they receive.

8

2. To increase awareness of the support deaf children and young people need to

achieve and challenging social attitudes which prevent them achieving.

3. To influence and challenge key decision makers to make deaf children and

young people a political priority.

NDCS has five offices throughout the UK. In Northern Ireland, a Country Director holds

responsibility for leadership, managerial and administrative requirements. In Northern

Ireland there are currently twelve staff working, including Family Officers, Policy and

Campaigns Officer and Research and Evaluation Officer, who provide collective

expertise across policy, education, health and welfare domains. The two Family Officers

oversee the North/East and South/West of Northern Ireland, acting as one of the points

of contact and a source of information and support for parents and carers of deaf

children. The organisation maintains a central data base of diagnosed deaf children and

young people who are members of NDCS, with details on age and degree of deafness.

This allows NDCS staff from the various country offices and project teams to lend

experience and expertise as and when required, ensuring that service provision is

delivered with equity across the differing regions supported by the organisation.

In addition to core funding, NDCS Northern Ireland has secured further financial

assistance to support the development and delivery of its programmes. For example,

The National Lottery through the Big Lottery Fund has funded programmes to improve

the life chances of deaf children and young people across Northern Ireland by focusing

on their social and emotional development and well-being. Additionally, the Department

for Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) has funded the delivery of sign language classes

for parents.

4.0 WORKING WITH FAMILIES

Most children are referred to NDCS by the Health and Social Care Trusts (HSCT)

following an initial diagnosis of deafness or hearing loss. Initial contact is made by the

Family Officer, with families deciding how engaged they wish to become. With

assistance from NDCS, a network of family support groups has been established by

parents for parents, and seven currently operate across Northern Ireland:

9

Belfast and District Deaf Children’s Society

Omagh Deaf Children’s Society

HI FIVE Deaf Children’s Society

Parents at North Down and Ards (P.A.N.D.A)

Sound Friends (Portadown) Deaf Children’s Society

Newtownabbey Hearing Hub

HEAR&NOW Foyle Deaf Children’s Society

In Northern Ireland, the NDCS offers a range of programmes and events, developed to

meet the needs of deaf children and their families. These include:

Newly Diagnosed Weekend;

Pre-School Weekend

Feeling Good family weekend (children aged 9-13)

Parenting a Deaf Child

Healthy Minds Residentials

Listening bus

Creative, sporting and adventure events

With the Big Lottery Funding, a dedicated five-year programme has been implemented

with the aim ‘… to improve the life chances of deaf children and young people across

Northern Ireland by focusing on their social and emotional development and well-being’.

The programme is designed to work with deaf children and young people, their families

and relevant professionals through an inter-connected calendar of training, awareness-

raising and peer mentoring, intended to help deaf children and young people reach their

full potential.

As an organisation, the NDCS has facilitated a range of training sessions for schools,

including an introduction to sign language. These sessions are based on the premise

that training for teaching and support staff can significantly enhance the inclusion of deaf

children in mainstream schools.

4.1 Education Materials

10

The NDCS has a comprehensive catalogue of publications and resources for deaf

children and young people, their families, teachers and other professionals that are

available in hard copy and via the organisation website. These comprise educational

documents as well as publications intended to provide support and guidance on a range

of matters including, inter alia, understanding deafness, access to health and social care

and equality legislation.

Educational material developed by NDCS and distributed to families in Northern Ireland

comprises a range of generic (UK-wide) and NI-specific documents. Generic documents

include:

Starting primary school

Starting secondary school

Quality Standards

In addition, families receive a quarterly newsletter that provides information, insight and

updates on a wide range of deaf related matters, including educational issues.

Northern Ireland-specific documents comprise a series of factsheets including:

The Annual Review of a Statement of SEN and Transition Plans

Concerns about Placement/Provision

Appealing to the SEN and Disability Tribunal in NI about the Contents of Your

Child’s Statement

The generic material is largely age and context specific, applicable to children, young

people and their families at key points in the schooling. Northern Ireland-specific

material focuses on information relating to the statutory procedures for special

educational needs; additionally, NDCS provide updates on the SEN Review via the

website as well as commentary on education issues affecting deaf children and young

people, for example, pupil attainment and the implications of devolved funding to

schools.

4.0 Children who are Deaf

11

There are at least 14819 deaf children and young people in Northern Ireland. The most

common level of deafness among children and young people is moderate deafness

(31%), followed by mild (29%), unilateral, or hearing loss in one ear (17%), profound

(12%) and severe (11%). Data provided by the ELBs indicate that 118 children and

young people across Northern Ireland have cochlear implants, representing 8% of the

total population of deaf children (CRIDE, 2013). Of the available data, the overwhelming

majority of deaf children (95%) communicate using spoken English only, with smaller

proportions variously using (1.4%) British Sign Language (BSL), other sign language

(1.6%) or spoken English with sign language (0.9%) (CRIDE, 2013).

A system of universal newborn hearing screening has been in place in Northern Ireland

since 2005. On diagnosis, parents of a deaf child are automatically assigned a named

Family Officer and a Teacher of the Deaf. The Family Officer provides one-to-one

support to parents on a range of issues, including information and advice on education,

welfare and health options. The Family Officer can also offer basic sign language to

parents. Similarly, the Teacher of the Deaf liaises with the family on a regular basis up

to and, in some cases, after the child starts school. Teachers of the Deaf is a peripatetic

service provided by the ELBs; the numbers of vary across each Board and they are

deployed in different ways, with some Boards, for example, opting to focus on dedicated

work to skill up teachers. This includes sessions with school staff (as well as parents) to

raise awareness on deaf issues, for example, speech and language tips, communication

cues and environmental acoustics. An Educational Specialist is available to talk parents

through the statementing process and ensure they are informed to access relevant

resources and other support. Although the post has an educational remit, it is funded by

the local HSCT and is intended as a ‘catch all’ to ensure that no family is isolated. Some

training on deaf awareness is also offered to teachers through Big Lottery Funding.

4.1 Education and Children who are Deaf

9 Figures in Sections 4.0 and 4.1 are based on survey findings collected from ELBs by the Consortium for Research in Deaf Education (CRIDE) (2012-2013). Due to incomplete data, figures represent adjusted totals which CRIDE define as ‘…using the highest figure given from either the overall total or the total generated through the sum of broken down figures’. CRIDE therefore recommends that figures are used with caution when comparing data with other sources.

12

Of the total number of deaf children and young people, the largest proportion (45%) is of

primary school age, followed by pupils of secondary school age (34%), pre-school age

(14%) and young people in maintained sixth forms (7%). Of the overall population of

deaf children and young people, the majority (62%) who are school age attend

mainstream schools with no specialist provision. The remainder attend mainstream

schools with resource provision (2%), special schools for deaf pupils (2%), other special

schools for SEN other than deafness (17%), post-16 provision (5%) or are supported

pre-school at home (12%).

Based on data from ELBs, it is estimated that the adjusted total of deaf children and

young people with an additional SEN is just under a quarter (24%) of the adjusted total,

with the most common additional SEN being severe learning difficulty (4.8%), moderate

learning difficulty (4%) and profound and multiple learning difficulty (1.4%).

For children to have a successful education it is important that they are supported by

staff with relevant knowledge and expertise. This implies a common standard of

provision across schools. Support provided by ELBs to deaf children and young people

can include direct teaching, liaison and/or visits to the family and school and provision of

hearing aid checks. Based on available data (adjusted total), figures indicate that

approximately 1,097 children and young people receive support from ELBs, with primary

aged children (42%) constituting the biggest group, followed by secondary aged children

(29%), pre-school aged children (23%) and young people in maintained sixth forms

(5%). Support is most commonly provided to children and young people with moderate

deafness (41%), followed by profound deafness (17%), mild and severe deafness (16%

each) and unilateral deafness (11%). Proportionally, pre-school children (86%) are more

likely to receive support than other age groups. There are at least 35 Teachers of the

Deaf currently working in Northern Ireland, the majority (86%) holding the mandatory

qualification. Most Teachers of the Deaf work in a peripatetic capacity, visiting homes

and schools where there is no specialist resource provision. The available data also

suggests at least three other specialist support staff working with deaf children and

young people; all of these are teaching assistants working in resource provisions. For

the most part, peripatetic support services and resource provisions are funded centrally

through ELBs.

13

As with other types of SEN, the education of deaf children presents its own set of

challenges. Its status as a low incidence need arguably affects the nature of provision

provided in schools, not least in terms of professional expertise. Original proposals in

the SEN Review to give control to schools for SEN budgets raised concerns that

devolved monies may neither be ring-fenced nor spent in the most appropriate or

effective way, with implications for the inclusion and provision of deaf pupils in

mainstream schools (NDCS, 2012; CDSA, 2009). This option has since been deferred,

with budgetary control remaining at ELB level.

In Northern Ireland there has been a broad overall upward trend in the numbers of deaf

children achieving 5 GCSEs A*-C10. However, recent evidence suggests some disparity

across ELBs in the attainment of deaf children which has been aligned to provision in

individual Boards. For example, the NEELB which provides an audiology van and

employs the highest number of Teachers of the Deaf (n=10) has recorded a substantial

increase in the attainment of deaf children in its area11, with data indicating a gap of

22.4% between the highest and lowest achieving Board areas12.

5.0 METHODOLOGY

The review was undertaken over 20 days between February – March 2014. It involved a

mixed methods approach, incorporating desk-based analysis of educational

documentation and a series of focus group and individual telephone interviews with a

sample of parents.

10 An overall increase from 41.1% (03/04 – 05/06) to 53.1% (09/10 – 10/11) AQW 12738/11-1511 The numbers of children achieving 5 GCSEs A*-C in NEELB rose from 37.5% during the period 03/04 – 05/06 to 68.2% during the period 09/10 – 10/11.12 AQW 12738/11-15

14

A qualitative process of data collection was considered the most relevant and efficient

means of gathering representative parental perspectives within the time available13. This

comprised:

Initial meetings with the NDCS staff in Northern Ireland to clarify terms of

reference and negotiate access to parents;

Analysis of education materials;

Focus group and telephone interviews with parents from local support groups.

Initially, interviews were scheduled to align with the regular meetings of each local

group. In this way, it would be possible to maximise the number of parents participating

and ensure a broad range of parental perspectives was represented. Where it was not

possible to schedule a focus group session, a series of individual telephone interviews

were conducted using the same interview schedule (Appendix 1).

Focus group interviews were recorded and the researcher also took notes during the

session; detailed notes were also taken during each telephone interview. Full transcripts

of focus group interviews were not possible during the time available. However, the

researcher listened to each interview several times to identify emerging themes, to

synthesise parental comments in relation to interview questions and to extrapolate

relevant quotes to illustrate key findings. In accordance with University research

protocol, full ethical approval was sought prior to the commencement of the review.

6.0 FINDINGS

The findings are a collective synopsis of focus group and individual telephone interviews.

They are supplemented with a series of quotations from parents; quotations are not

ascribed to any individual to preserve parental confidentiality. Broadly, the findings can

be categorised into the following themes:

13 By necessity, this means that the pool of respondents are representative of those parents who are most engaged with NDCS, are proactive in seeking support for their deaf child/children, and who have had favourable experiences with NDCS in the past. While this may be seen as leading to a disparity of opinion, it is recognised that they are a viable population for a research project of this size and scale, and that they are as equally deserving of being ‘re-voiced’ in terms of the SEN review debate as those who have taken a decision not to engage with NDCS resources or staff. Future research into the missing voices of NI parents of d/Deaf children should attempt to redress this balance by canvassing the opinions of those this project could not reach.

15

Family profile

Current education provision

NDCS support

NDCS literature

The role of the Family Officer

Professional Contact

The statutory SEN procedure

The SEN review

6.1 FAMILY PROFILE

A total of 17 parents took part in face-to-face focus group or individual telephone

interviews.

The ages of their children ranged from 2 ½ years to 20 years old. Most had a

diagnosis of severe/profound deafness, with the remainder diagnosed as

mildly/moderately deaf. A small number of children wore hearing aids or had

cochlear implants.

The majority of children had not been identified with additional SEN; identification

of those children with an additional SEN included autism, sensory processing

disorder dyslexia and muscular weakness.

6.2 CURRENT EDUCATION PROVISION

Children mainly attended mainstream schools (primary and post-primary), with

some attending Jordanstown School for the Deaf, pre-school play group and a

special school. One young person was currently attending university.

Parents reported mixed relationships with schools. A major concern was a

perceived lack of deaf-awareness and associated gap in teacher training.

Parents emphasised the need for in-house capacity rather than reliance on the

peripatetic teacher of the deaf, identifying that inconsistency in support at critical

16

stages (such as GCSE) would impact negatively on a deaf child’s educational

achievement: ‘More needs to be done to address this in schools. One of their

favourite sayings is ‘she’s coping’, but why should she have to cope?’

In a minority of instances, unsupportive home-school relationships were

perceived to undermine the child’s educational experience, particularly where

there was poor communication between parent, teacher and SENCO.

In this regard, there was a perception that inclusion was not what it could or

should be and that some schools did not fulfil their statutory responsibility to

address disability discrimination so that deaf children could enjoy a full and equal

educational experience.

Current educational support for children was variable. The most common form of

support was through provision of a Classroom Assistant (CA). Other support

included a radio aid for the child, with the class teacher wearing a microphone

and speech and language therapy.

Several parents reported specified CA time, most commonly an allocation of 20

hours per week. However, other parents had experienced variations in this

provision and queried the perceived lack of uniformity across ELB areas: ‘Surely

support is about helping the child to access the curriculum?’

In this regard, whilst parents acknowledged that each child will have different

needs, the importance of continuity in provision was recurrently stressed.

Integral to this was recognition that whilst support should meet children’s

immediate educational needs, the nature of such provision should be sufficiently

flexible to adjustment as they progress through school.

A small number of parents reported that specified CA support provided in primary

school had been withdrawn on their child’s transition to post-primary education,

with little clarity offered on the criteria leading to this decision. In these

instances, the revised recommendation for classroom support was considered

vague and therefore open to interpretation and difficult to monitor.

17

For parents, the implications of this was two-fold: firstly, they were concerned

that by withdrawing specified support the ELB was seeking to terminate the

statement and secondly, they were anxious that unspecified provision could not

effectively facilitate children’s educational progress, particularly as he/she

progressed towards formal examinations at Key Stage 4.

It was recognised that the funding of the CA post in the absence of a finalised

statement could be an issue for schools and parents were keen to ensure that, in

securing the necessary support for their child, good relations were maintained:

‘You don’t want schools or the Boards against you. Everybody needs to be on

the same page.’

Parents of deaf children without a statutory statement reported particular

challenges in accessing support independently from the school, which often

necessitated co-ordinating appointments with Speech and Language therapists

in the Health Trusts as well as on-going linguistic exercises after the school day.

One parent, describing the solitary nature of this, was concerned that out of

school support was compatible with the child’s learning needs in school: ‘It’s a

learning curve at the minute, but I’m always thinking ahead and worrying about

next year and what she’ll get and what she might miss.’

6.3 NDCS SUPPORT

The underlying principle of NDCS is representative of an inclusive and

collaborative approach to deafness that has sought to addresses key issues

affecting the education of deaf children. The location of a Northern Ireland office

was endorsed by all parents who saw it as a valuable local source of support for

deaf children and their families. The perceived ‘added value’ of a local agency

was most commonly described in terms of accessibility, familiarity and the

immediacy of telephone or face-to-face support.

The contribution of NDCS staff was highly praised by all parents who reported

that this input served a pivotal function in supporting deaf children and young

people in Northern Ireland. There was general acknowledgement that parental

18

understanding of deafness and related issues was enhanced by this dedicated

and strategic involvement.

Parents agreed that the overall remit of NDCS offered them an accessible

opportunity to understand their child’s deafness in an open and supportive

manner. Organisational commitment to develop relevant and meaningful

partnerships was reported through co-operative dialogue between NDCS and

parents.

In this regard, there was consistent appreciation of the on-going need for

localised support for deaf children and young people and their families. Parents

strongly agreed that the regional context:

o enabled them to explore, challenge and discuss understandings of

deafness with NDCS staff as well as with other parents;

o provided relevant knowledge and expertise so they felt sufficiently

prepared and confident in making decisions on their child’s education;

o minimised feelings of isolation and exclusion.

Parents welcomed the opportunity to participate in this evaluation process and

acknowledged the collaborative nature of the exercise. However, there was

some query on the extent to which parental feedback gathered following NDCS

events was used to inform subsequent planning.

All parents reported that they established contact with NDCS shortly after their

child’s diagnosis, often through referral from the audiologist. Whilst parents

acknowledged and appreciated the advice received from medical staff, they also

considered that NDCS provided a level of insight and support that health

professionals could not: ‘NDCS are always there for me. Without them, I

wouldn’t have known a thing. They opened my eyes to so many things I didn’t

know and provided everything above and beyond what I needed.’

All parents reported participation in NDCS events, most notably the newly

diagnosed weekend, family sign language and the pre-school weekend. The

19

value of these was strongly endorsed and each was perceived as a source of key

information and advice to help them support their child.

For all parents, the newly diagnosed weekend represented vital contact with

other families and the benefit of learning from the experiences of others: ‘One of

the biggest things is hearing from other parents and you realise you’re not alone.

You have to go through the process of realising your child is not the same as

other children but it’s not the end of the world.’

Similarly, the opportunity to engage with the range of professionals in attendance

meant that parents had access to a range of expertise that could provide

valuable indicators on educational and health related matters.

The value of a full weekend was queried by a few parents. The reasons for this

were twofold: firstly, it limited attendance to 12 families and secondly, the

proximity of a full weekend could be quite stressful for families. It was suggested

that one day or half day taster sessions for parents of children of different ages

could be an alternative and more cost-effective use of time and resources.

The benefits of the pre-school weekend were largely ascribed to sessions on the

statutory assessment and statementing process and the signposting this offered

in terms of the nature of the process, the language of the process as well as

potential challenges was considered particularly useful. For parents of older

children, sessions offered on transitions were similarly endorsed: ‘I attended it

early to be able to get my head around what I needed to be thinking of over the

course of the year.’

For some parents, the opportunity for their child to make friends with other deaf

children was a fundamental experience. In contrast, a few parents indicated that,

the priority given to those children due to start school might work detrimentally

against other children, particularly in relation to the preparatory advice in relation

to statutory processes.

20

Additionally, a few parents queried the usefulness of the technology weekend

and suggested a review of the purpose and intended outcomes attributed to

some events.

There were several suggestions for specific events, including children’s

development and learning and deaf children with an additional SEN. The latter

suggestion was considered a particular necessity, not least to minimise any

conflicting or contradictory advice from more than one agency.

Overall, parents considered that smaller and shorter events would enable more

focused discussion, particularly if thematic sessions were identified and agreed in

advance. In this regard, it was considered that the NDCS database could be

utilised in a more pro-active and pre-emptive manner to target specific groups of

parents according to their child’s age or stage of education.

Parents acknowledged NDCS summative evaluation of activities as a useful audit

of practice in Northern Ireland, although there were suggestions for a

complementary process of formative feedback that would inform the

development and content of events to ensure they were tailored to parents’

needs. In this regard, it was emphasised that parents’ expertise could be used

more constructively to inform and shape events.

6.4 NDCS LITERATURE

The content of the education specific material is designed locally and nationally

by NDCS staff. It was generally agreed that the relevance and timeliness of the

resources enhanced the validity and profile of the education support that NDCS

could offer.

Parents acknowledged the generosity of NDCS in the dissemination of literature

and agreed that the content was relevant, comprehensive and provided a

valuable point of reference on range of education, health and wider issues.

Whilst generic literature – for example, on starting school – was considered

21

useful, parents welcomed the development of NI-specific factsheets on the key

aspects of the SEN process.

There were mixed opinions on the volume of material provided, particularly in the

early stages after initial diagnosis. Some parents found the volume initially

overwhelming and the technical nature of certain language daunting: ‘There is so

much you have to wade through’, whilst others welcomed the detail: ‘I’m one of

those people who need to know so it was good to have it all to begin with’.

There was general consensus that parents, many of whom were still coming to

terms with their child’s deafness, simply needed the basics in the first instance,

with further information provided incrementally over time. A few parents

highlighted that subsequent communication with NDCS and the Family Officer

encouraged a gradual approach to the literature based on a ‘need to know’ basis.

In this regard, it was considered that phased dissemination literature would

enable parents to reflect on their individual circumstances and identify any

questions. It was suggested that a short conversation on the literature was a

preferable option: ‘So many of the documents I haven’t read yet. Someone

spending ten minutes to talk through it is much better. The knowledge, skills and

expertise of someone is much more preferable to reams of literature.’

All parents welcomed the production of NI-specific education material and urged

the development of further literature. The provision of relevant local contacts

was considered particularly useful for parents at the beginning of the education

process: ‘When you’re dealing with a situation you’ve never been involved in, the

paperwork allows you to read it and digest it and process what you’re hearing’.

All parents saw the factsheets as a vital source of information and agreed that

the content of each provided valuable detail in an accessible, ‘bite-sized’ format:

‘This was all new to me, but it was very helpful; it made me very aware of what to

expect and what rights I had.’

22

Parents agreed that the full value of educational literature was especially

apparent as their child began to move through the education system. Several

parents reported the benefits of sharing the factsheets with the school and

considered this had strengthened home-school communication.

The merit of these NI-specific factsheets was consistently stressed, particularly

given the diversification of SEN provision across the UK. There was overall

consensus that much of the English literature was not relevant to NI and could

confuse parents’ understanding, particularly around schooling and the SEN

process.

For parents, the progressive and complementary nature of the factsheets

provided valuable signposting for the statutory SEN process, detail, particularly in

relation to statements. This included:

o Completion of written submissions

o Timelines

o Quantification and specification of support

o Parental rights

o The appeals process

The associated advice provided by NDCS in relation to the SEN process was

commended by all parents. It was commonly agreed that the strategic guidance

of NDCS and the Family Officer in particular provided significant benefits,

notably:

o Parents felt better equipped to negotiate and interpret the language of the

statutory process;

o By being more informed, parents felt more confident entering the

assessment and statementing process;

o Initial knowledge and experience provided a reference point from which to

approach meetings with education and other professionals.

23

Overall, parents found the NDCS website a useful resource. Some parents

reported regular use in the early stages following their child’s diagnosis, whilst

others described it as an occasional reference point to check information or to

look at new publications. There was general agreement that the website

required time to navigate and signposting for some resources – particularly NI-

specific material - could be more visible.

For some parents, access to the Parent Support network provided an additional

source of information, and its value for those living in rural areas was noted.

Some were active participants, using it to seek advice from other parents on

certain issues, whilst others preferred to scan it on an occasional basis to monitor

topics were under discussion.

Parents generally viewed the national helpline as a source of general

information, although there was a distinct preference for localised support,

particularly access to relevant local contacts and in relation to education matters.

6.5 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY OFFICER

A key characteristic of the NDCS is the level of direct staff involvement. For all

parents, this was most notably visible in their relationship with the Family Officer

(FO). Undoubtedly, these have been pivotal relationships, providing valuable

advice and support on an on-going basis and many parents acknowledged a

level of support that often extended beyond professional remits in terms of the

time commitment and unsocial hours offered by the FOs.

All parents reported contact with the FO shortly after their child’s initial diagnosis

and agreed this relationship was instrumental in helping them come to terms with

their child’s deafness. Parents particularly identified the empathetic nature of this

relationship, not least in terms of highlighting the options and life chances still

available: ‘She knew the rawness of our situation and let us know that we weren’t

on our own.’

In this regard, all parents appreciated the openness and pragmatism of the FO in

all matters relating to their child. They agreed that this one-to-one contact

24

enabled them to have frank conversations without the emotional connection of

family and in the knowledge that any questions would be answered openly and

honestly.

The availability of the FO, including outside part-time working hours, was

acknowledged by all parents who also stated that the FO maintained regular

contact, providing reassurance that the service was there when needed.

The knowledge and expertise offered by the FO was considered instrumental in

navigation of the intricacies of the statutory processes. Parents welcomed this

information in advance of their child starting school, not least since the

signposting of potential issues provided valuable planning time in advance of the

assessment and statementing process.

This support included: helping parents to articulate their child’s needs; talking

through educational options; interpreting reports from the Educational

Psychologist; identifying omissions in the proposed statement; equipping parents

with the relevant information for meetings with the ELB; and advising on legal

options to challenge the statement: ‘If [FO] hadn’t told me those things, my child

would have gone to school with nothing. It made me aware of the problems he

might face’.

In all cases, parents reported that the relationship with the FO instilled a

confidence that they would not have otherwise, particularly in dealing with the

range of professionals who would make decisions on their child’s education.

This was most apparent in parents’ realisation of their right to expect equal

education for their child and to query any decision that undermined this,

particularly in relation to specified and quantified support. In practical terms, this

also included every day considerations such as the child’s position in the

classroom; having hearing equipment checked; additional resources such as a

loop system, microphone.

6.6 PROFESSIONAL CONTACT

25

For parents, the most recurrent professional contact outside of the school was

the Teacher of the Deaf (ToD) and the Educational Psychologist (EP). All

parents reported that contact with the Teacher of the Deaf was established within

a few weeks of their child’s diagnosis, with the Educational Psychologist more

likely to become involved prior to the child starting pre-school.

Parents agreed that the ToD was fulfilled a pivotal role, providing advice and

assistance on a range of matters. The ToD was variously described as being

‘hands-on’, ‘approachable’ and ‘direct’. For some, reassurance from the ToD that

education would not be out of their child’s reach was a source of encouragement

prior to their child starting school.

The nature of this support can be collectively described as raising deaf

awareness to maximise parents’ opportunities to communicate with their child as

well as help them prepare for nursery or school. Interventions included speech

and language tips, cues, and the importance of storytelling.

Parents agreed that the ToD provided similar deaf awareness to school staff;

instances of on-going contact with schools, tips for teachers and advice on the

acoustics and layout of the classroom and wider school environment were

reported.

It was also noted by some parents that the ToD, along with the FO, provided

valuable advice on the assessment and statementing procedures as well as

interpretation of reports from the Educational Psychologist. In one instance, the

ToD was instrumental in collating information from relevant professionals to

secure specified classroom assistance: ‘It really was a complete team that

helped ensure provision, with each one reinforcing the other’.

Parental contact with the EP was generally initiated when the child was 2 ½ - 3

years, in advance of pre-school. Parents saw this engagement as an opportunity

to discuss educational options, with the EP highlighting their child’s strengths as

well as identifying aspects of their deafness that merited monitoring.

26

For many parents, the EP assessment was a less than satisfactory process.

This dissatisfaction related to two key procedural issues, each of which had

implications for the accuracy of recommendations contained in subsequent

reports.

Firstly, parents’ queried the extent to which EPs were familiar with the practical

day-to-day manifestations of deafness. Secondly, EP assessments tended to be

conducted on a one-to-one basis in a quiet location which did not represent the

busy surroundings of a classroom or other group situations.

As a result, these parents considered the EP assessment could have potentially

detrimental impact on their child’s education provision: ‘If we had listened to the

person in charge … we would have let our child go to school with next to

nothing.’ In this regard, it was considered that a health (audiology) professional

would have the greater expertise to advise on these matters.

6.7 THE STATUTORY SEN PROCEDURE

Parents unanimously agreed that the statutory SEN procedure had been a taxing

experience, describing it variously as ‘fraught’, ‘complex’, ‘frightening’, and

‘bureaucratic’. By association, the statement itself was described as: ‘… a very

scary document and very intimidating when you first see it’.

Issues most commonly identified related to complex terminology, repetitive form

filling, lengthy delays and a prevailing perception of constantly having to fight for

resources. Parents also considered that their opinions were not always fully

recognised and the expertise and insight they could provide was frequently

overlooked.

Protocol around the preparation and completion of the statutory statement was a

recurrent source of concern and the majority of parents described it as a process

that seemingly contradicted the philosophy and principles of inclusion: ‘You just

need to keep going. Query everything fight for everything, but it is so hard to

keep going at times. If you are not a pushy parent, your child may lose out’.

27

For a few parents, recourse to paying for private assessments was a particular

dilemma: ‘… the more you help your child, the more likely you are to lose

support. It’s self-defeating. You’re punished for helping your own child’.

Parents were particularly critical of procedure around the proposed wording of

the final statement and in most cases they described a protracted engagement

with ELBs that, in some cases, led to appeal or to Tribunal hearing.

The biggest issue for parents was reliance on generic terminology - ‘… it could

have been for any child’ – with general consensus that the language of the

proposed statement was not child-specific and its ambiguity left it vulnerable to

mis-interpretation.

In this regard, the non-specification of support was the most recurrent complaint,

with the majority of parents identifying this as the primary source of disagreement

with ELBs. Non-specification of support most commonly related to the number of

dedicated Classroom Assistant hours as well as access to resources including

speech therapy and adaptions to ensure the correct acoustical environment.

For these parents, the absence of specified support represented neglect of their

child’s deafness and potentially undermined their educational progress: ‘My child

isn’t deaf for two hours a day; she is deaf all day, every day.’

Parents were particularly grateful for NDCS support during protracted

negotiations with ELBs, not least in terms of securing a final statement most

appropriate to their child: ‘There’s a part of you that just wants to accept it, but

the right people are there to say no, it has to be perfect for your child’.

Such negotiation, particularly in the early stages of their child’s education, was

seen as vital to secure support over the long term: ‘If you agree to the final

statement, you don’t have a leg to stand on until the Annual Review. If it’s not in

black and white, it can’t be guaranteed.’

Recourse to the appeals process was often a necessary last resort and parents

variously sought advice from NDCS, the Children’s Law Centre and individual

28

children’s lawyers. This, in part, was attributed to a lack of advice from ELBs:

‘Nobody there told me as a parent that I could appeal. Why would they?’

In most instances, parental appeals to individual ELBs were upheld, although

sometimes this happened only after formal proceedings to the SEN Tribunal

were initiated. In a few instances, a final decision was taken by the SEN Tribunal

and, of the reported cases, the ruling was in favour of the parents. Although the

Tribunal was described as an intense and drawn out process, these parents

acknowledged: ‘Without it, my child would be lost to the system.’

A few parents had gone through the annual review process and reported mixed

experiences. For these parents, the priority was to maintain the support provided

for their child in school and in transition from primary to post-primary. There was

some concern that a child’s academic progress might, inaccurately, result in the

reduction or loss of support: ‘I’m worried that since he’s doing so well, he might

lose support. But he relies on the CA to pick up information over the course of

the school day, inside and outside the classroom. Those wee cues and pieces of

information that people take for granted.’

Those parents who had a positive outcome agreed that the information and

support provided in advance by NDCS and the FO was instrumental in helping

them present their case at review meetings. In contrast, other parents

considered that the make-up of the panel was weighted unevenly in favour of the

professionals: ‘At every review of the statement I panic. It’s very intimidating

being there with all those professionals and they’re telling you, this is how it is.’

6.8 THE SEN REVIEW

The majority of parents were aware of the SEN Review but were less clear on

the detail of proposed changes and potential implications for SEN provision in

Northern Ireland.

There was a common perception that the Review was an administratively rather

than professionally led process and that the final proposals would be directed by

cost instead of need.

29

In this regard, all parents expressed misgivings on the allocation of future funding

and were concerned that some children would inevitably lose out: ‘I’m worried

there will be a lot of changes on which children will be supported, who does and

doesn’t get. It’s been a hard enough battle as it is.’

One of the most significant concerns related to proposed changes to the

statutory statement. Particular reservations were directed towards any revised

criteria and the impact this could have on certain groups of children: ‘Changes to

the statement may be inevitable, but I hope that ultimately there is still protection

for the child. It does scare me, though’.

This concern was two-fold. Firstly, parents were anxious that any loss of the

protection and provision specified in a statement would diminish their child’s

educational progress. Secondly, it was felt that decisions may be based on

incomplete assessment of the child’s needs - for example, that a child with a

hearing aid or a child who was succeeding academically would not need

additional support.

There was also some apprehension about the impact of the Review on parental

rights and consensus that this should be protected: ‘We fought hard to get the

statement. I don’t want to lose that right as a parent to fight for my child’.

7.0. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is clear that the NDCS has offered parents a genuine opportunity to make informed

decisions on their deaf child’s education. In particular, the production of the education

factsheet series and the post of the Family Officer have been instrumental in providing

parents with accessible and relevant information to make those choices.

The findings of this review suggest that NDCS has a number of organisational strengths

that affirm its function as source of support for parents. The NDCS has maintained a

vigilant role monitoring on-going changes within education - not least in relation to the

statutory processes for SEN and the SEN Review. The final model for SEN and

Inclusion in Northern Ireland is not yet known; any revised framework will have inherent

30

implications for all children with SEN, including deaf children. NDCS has a clear remit

to maintain an informative and strategic role in this process of change, representing

immediate and longer term support to parents.

Broadly, the recommendations have sought to inform NDCS with reference to four key

themes:

1. The Strategic Contribution of NDCS

2. The Role of the Family Officer

3. NDCS and Education Provision

4. NDCS and the Policy Environment

7.1 THE STRATEGIC CONTRIBUTION OF NDCS

There is little doubt of the commitment of NDCS to supporting parents of deaf

children in Northern Ireland. It is important that the remit of the organisation

maintains an informed and strategic focus that both reflects regional

circumstances and challenges education provision for deaf children. Within this

local context, rural isolation is an issue of particular concern.

The capacity of NDCS to lobby government and education providers on key

issues is an important source of reassurance for deaf children and young people

and their parents. Such active representation is a visible feature of the

organisation and should be maintained. This presence could be developed

further through a strategic research agenda developed to inform policy

development and implementation in Northern Ireland.

In this regard, there are several inter-related options for further empirical

research. The voices of both parents and children have been an under-

represented dimension of deaf-related and wider special education research in

Northern Ireland. Within the framework of the SEN Review and potential policy

changes, there is a strong case to redress this imbalance.

Similarly, the nature and level of support (in terms of allocation of resources and

classroom assistance) merits further exploration. For example, for deaf children

31

and young people, the accessibility of quantified and specified support

represents a particular challenge to the principles and practice of inclusion.

NDCS has sought to support parents through a range of events that provided

information, expertise on a range of issues. The findings suggest there is some

scope to review current provision and to consider shorter, tailored sessions to

complement established events. Any revision should seek to remain sufficiently

responsive and flexible whilst retaining a core remit to the fundamental principles

of NDCS.

The NDCS data base represents an immediate opportunity to maximise parental

engagement and develop tailored sessions based on identified need. This

recommendation is based on the premise that the data base is maintained and

regularly reviewed to ensure that details on parents and children are updated.

As part of a forward planning strategy, the creation of a flag system would alert

NDCS in advance of a child reaching a certain key age (eg transition, GCSE).

This approach would enable the dissemination of specific literature and/or the

organisation of sessions for specific groups of parents.

The findings illustrate that parental involvement has been nurtured through a

partnership approach that seeks to maximise parental engagement by

recognising parents as experts on their children. This expertise could be

harnessed in a more productive way, for example, greater parental input in the

structure and content of events, using parents as facilitators at events and the

development of a ‘buddy’ system. In this regard, consideration of parent

partnership initiatives in England and Wales is a valid starting point.

7.2 THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY OFFICER

The Family Officer post has proved an indispensable service to parents and the

nature of this engagement has emphatically demonstrated the fundamental value

of sustained, one-to-one engagement. It is important that the status and remit of

the Family Officer is maintained.

32

Much of the success of the Family Officer post lies in the disposition of

individuals to build and sustain relationships with families. Whilst this review did

not seek to quantify the physical and emotional cost to parents of negotiating

their child’s education provision, it is clear that the personal qualities of the FO

created a genuine support system between parents and professionals.

Consideration of personal attributes should remain integral to any expansion of

this post.

7.3 NDCS AND EDUCATION

Parental endorsement of Northern Ireland-specific education factsheets has

demonstrated their relevance and application in a local setting. With the

diversification of SEN policy across the UK and contrasting approaches in wider

educational provision, there is a compelling argument for regional publications

that reflect the policy of each jurisdiction.

In the first instance, further educational factsheets on the SEN Review,

transitions and career guidance would ensure that parents received relevant

information in an accessible format, with the option that NDCS produce further

NI-specific material as required. At the same time, generic publications should

be maintained to avoid unnecessary duplication.

The NDCS website and helpline have been valuable sources of information and

clearly serve a purpose for parents. However, navigation around the website has

been problematic and there is scope to review and streamline the current format.

This could include, for example, clearer signposting to regional sections, each

with its own context-specific material. Similarly, the national helpline cannot

always fully respond to local queries and the merits of a local helpline should be

explored within available budgets. As a resource, this could provide additional

valuable information for the Northern Ireland data base.

The educational credentials of the NDCS could be enhanced through explicit

inclusion in school development planning. This would entail the presence of a

dedicated NDCS staff member at the school development planning meeting for

the first year in which a deaf child will attend the school alongside the ToD, to

33

offer complementary guidance on the appropriate ‘reasonable adjustments’ that

may be made to assist the student’s integration in terms of the learning

environment; and also to ensure that all relevant staff (Head Teacher, Teacher-

in-Charge of Pastoral Care, SENCO, Head of Year, Teacher-in-Charge of Extra-

Curricular Activity, Named Representative for Child Protection and SW Liaison,

Head of Ancillary Staff) are in receipt of the same information regarding the

social and emotional impacts of deafness, and what this means in practical terms

for the school as a whole and the class in particular. This may involve having

Deaf Awareness Training written in as a standard INSET day, or offering the

Healthy Minds training programme early in the student’s first term. In this

context, the organisation’s strategic contribution to enriching the educational,

social and cultural experiences for deaf pupils would effectively help formalise

schools’ agenda for special education and inclusion. There are several benefits

to such an approach:

o It stipulates a schools institutional, professional and pastoral position with

regard to deafness and deaf issues;

o It necessitates an associated commitment to further teachers’

professional development in this area;

o It underlines partnership as a fundamental and organic element of

education;

o It emphasises the continued educational and social relevance of

inclusion.

Explicit reference to deaf awareness in School Development Plans ensures that

the education principles promoted by NDCS is included as an ongoing whole-

school strategy. In this way, deaf awareness can occupy a niche position within

an inclusive framework. This is an important consideration since it safeguards

any perception that provision is a one-off or ‘needs must’ exercise, and reinforces

its value amongst all staff.

In terms of raising deaf awareness in schools, NDCS could consider the merits of

an incremental approach, whereby the initial involvement of certain staff directly

involved with a deaf pupil is gradually widened to include ‘core’ and/or whole

34

school participation. This progressive approach carries the expectation of

institutional ownership and safeguards that particular expertise is not lost through

the staff attrition.

NDCS has produced a Northern Ireland edition of The Deaf Friendly Guide for

Schools, a resource for principals, staff and governors (DE, 2002). A review of

this guide led to a UK wide set of resources on ‘supporting achievement’ being

made available to all schools; however parent feedback suggests that schools

are not using these documents, and found the parent fact-sheets more useful

and appropriate. It may be a worthwhile consideration to present the information

for schools in a similar regionally specific format.

7.4 NDCS AND THE SEN REVIEW

The lobbying function of NDCS illustrates the particular role of NDCS in relation

to the SEN Review. The possible outcomes of the Review, not least in relation

to the statutory statementing process and the specification and quantification of

support will have implications for deaf children and their families. The NDCS

should maintain a visible and vigilant position on the Review process. By

adopting a child-centred, rights-based approach to these issues, it reinforces the

inclusive principles of NDCS that will benefit not just deaf children, but all

children with SEN.

There is a need to raise parental awareness on the key points of the SEN

Review. In this regard, the educational factsheets provide a useful template that

would enable dissemination of information in an accessible format. There is also

scope for a series of short information sessions to complement the literature.

These should address specific aspects of the Review process and give parents

the opportunity to raise any queries. The NDCS data base could be utilised to

maximise parental engagement and ensure that, where relevant, information is

targeted at specific groups of parents.

As already stated, NDCS has a visible role lobbying on behalf of deaf children

and their parents. Whilst NDCS can signpost parents to other sources of advice

35

– legal and otherwise - the extent to which it can act as a personal advocate for

parents in meetings on the statutory SEN process is less clear. This may

become a more recurrent issue as the final proposals of the SEN Review

emerge. Clarification of the legal position of NDCS should be highlighted in the

educational material provided to parents.

Capacity building in schools to support the wide spectrum of pupils with special

educational needs has been identified as a continued professional development

need for teachers, senior management classroom assistants and other support

staff. NDCS can effectively contribute to supporting school staff in anticipation of

SEN policy changes by:

o Actively promoting deaf awareness (in collaboration with the Teacher of

the Deaf) within the framework of current and prospective policy changes;

o Auditing and recording school demand for dedicated support in this area;

o Developing a training programme that can be tailored to individual school

and staff needs.

The prospect of contributing to the Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

environment is a commitment that NDCS may decide is outside their remit.

However, it is a developmental approach that reinforces its educational

credentials and further develops the partnership ethos between NDCS, home

and school.

Collaboration with other agencies should be actively promoted, particularly

where a child has an additional SEN. In these circumstances, the value of a

joined up approach can reduce parental anxiety and minimise conflicting

messages. In this respect, there is clearly scope for this as part of a dedicated

Education Officer post in Northern Ireland; equally, useful reference points

include some of the recommendations identified in the Task Group reports for

autism (DE, 2000) and dyslexia (DE, 2002), as well as the more recent strategic

reviews of special education in England (DCSF, 2009) and learning provision in

Scotland (Doran, 2012).

36

8.0 CONCLUSION

It is intended that this review will inform the educational remit of NDCS in Northern

Ireland. It is clear that parents have benefited significantly from their relationship with

NDCS. Equally, within a shifting policy environment, the need for context-specific

material, particularly in relation to education, has become a greater imperative. The

collaborative process around which parents have felt empowered to make and/or

challenge decisions on their child’s education has defined the partnership ethos of

NDCS and has reinforced the importance of this regional support, specifically as it works

within the multi-channel system of face-to-face, peer-led, telephonic and electronic

support, advice and information.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, L. (2007) Northern Ireland Special Educational Needs Coordinators creating inclusive environments: an epic struggle. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 391-407.

Cajkler W., Tennant G., Tiknaz Y., Sage R., Tucker S., and Taylor C. (2007) A systematic literature review on how training and professional development activities impact on teaching assistants’ classroom practice (1988- 2006). In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

Children’s Law Centre (CLC). (2012) Special educational needs and inclusion policy development. Briefing paper, 3rd May, 2011. Belfast, Children’s Law Centre.

Children with Disabilities Strategic Alliance (CDSA). (2014 forthcoming) The State of SEN statements, the Case for Quantification Belfast, CiNI.

Children with Disabilities Strategic Alliance (CDSA). (2009) Education Manifesto. Looking to the future for special educational needs. Belfast, CiNI.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2009) Lamb Inquiry: Special Educational Needs and parental confidence. Nottingham, DCSF Publications.

Department of Education (DE). (2012) Review of SEN and inclusion. Minister’s presentation to the Committee for Education. May 16th, 2012. Bangor, DE.

Department of Education (DE). (2011) A resource file for schools to support children with special educational needs. Bangor, DE.

Department of Education (DE). (2005a) The Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order. Bangor, DE.

Department of Education (DE). (2005b) Parental attitudes to the statutory assessment and statementing procedures on special educational needs. Bangor, DE.

Department of Education (DE). (2005c) Supplement to the Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs.Bangor, DE.5Department of Education. (2002) Deaf friendly schools. A guide for principals, staff and governors. Bangor DE.

Department of Education. (2002) The education of children and young people with specific learning difficulties. Report of the task group on dyslexia. Bangor, DE.

Department of Education. (2002) The education of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders. Report of the task group on autism. Bangor, DE.

Department of Education (DE). (1998) Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. Bangor, DE.

38

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. (2011) Speech, Language and Communication Therapy Action Plan: Improving Services for Children and Young People2011/12 – 2012/13. Belfast, DHSSPS.

Doran, P. (2012) The Right Help at the right time in the right place. Strategic Review of Learning Provision for Children and Young People with Complex Additional Support Needs. Edinburgh, The Scottish Government.

Flatman Watson, S. (2009) Barriers to inclusive education in Ireland: the case for pupils with a diagnosis of intellectual and/or pervasive developmental disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 277-284.

General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI). (2007) Teaching: The reflective profession. Belfast, GTCNI.

Inclusion Europe. (2009) Inclusive education status report for Europe. Brussels, Inclusion Europe.

Lundy, L. and Kilpatrick, R. (2006) Children’s rights and special educational needs: Findings from research conducted for the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People. Support for Learning, 21(2), 57-63.

Meegan, S. and MacPhail, A. (2006) Inclusive education: Ireland’s education provision for children with special educational needs. Irish Educational Studies, 25(1), 53-62.

National Deaf Children’s Society. (2013) Educating deaf children: NDCS briefing for the Education Committee, October 2013. Belfast, NDCS.

O’Connor, U. (2008) Meeting in the middle? A study of parent-professional partnerships. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(3), 253-268.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005) Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages, Statistics and Indicators. Paris, OECD.

Nugent, M. (2007) Comparing inclusive and segregated settings for children with dyslexia - parental perspectives from Ireland. Support for Learning, 22(2), 52-59.

O’Donnell, M. (2003) Transfer from special to mainstream: the voice of the pupil. In: M.Shevlin and R. Rose (eds) Encouraging voices: respecting the insights of young people who have been marginalised, pp. 228-253. Dublin, National Disability Authority.

O’Gorman, E. and Drudy, S. (2010) Addressing the professional development needs of teachers working in the area of special educational needs/inclusion in mainstream schools in Ireland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(1), 157-167.

O’Gorman, E. (2007) Reflections on teacher education in special educational needs in Ireland. Learn, 29, 100-110.

39

Prunty, A. (2011) Implementation of children’s rights: what is in ‘the best interests of the child’ in relation to the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD)? Irish Educational Studies, 30(1), 23-44.

Radahan, A. (2006) Implementing inclusive education in mainstream primary schools: An exploration of parental perspectives. Learn, 28, 36-42.

Special Educational Needs Advice Centre (SENAC). (2009) The relationship between the courts, the Boards and the Tribunal. Presentation by the Hon. Mr Justice Morgan, SENAC Conference: The Law on Special Educational Needs, 22 May 2009. Belfast, SENAC.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (2006a) General comment No.9. The rights of children with disabilities. Geneva, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

United Nations (UN). (2011) Including the rights of persons with disabilities in United Nations programming at country level. A guidance note for United Nations country teams and implementing partners. New York, United Nations.

United Nations General Assembly. (2013) Thematic study on the right of persons with disabilities to education. Geneva, Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Winter, E.C. (2006) Initial teacher education: preparing new teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms. Support for Learning, 21(2), 85-91.

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2011) World report on disability. Geneva, WHO.

This research was commissioned by the National Deaf Children’s Society, and funded by the National Lottery through the Big Lottery Fund. The author asserts her right to ownership of the analytical findings and recommendations as an individual un-associated with the directorate of these organisations.

40