Plenary, 04 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 4, 2004

Official Report 638KB pdf

---

Achievements of Deaf Pupils in Scotland

The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-758, in the name of Cathie Craigie, on the achievements of deaf pupils in Scotland project. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament congratulates the Scottish Executive for funding the Achievements of Deaf Pupils in Scotland project since November 2000; is concerned to note the gap in achievements between deaf and hearing children identified in its initial findings, and considers that the Executive should continue to fund the project so that groundbreaking year-on-year evidence can be collected to enable identification of factors which can be addressed by education services for deaf pupils in Scotland.

I thank the members who signed the motion and those who have stayed for the debate. The support of so many members shows how important the research and information that has been gathered by the achievements of deaf pupils in Scotland project team are to members and their constituents. Through their commitment to and enthusiasm about the project, Mary Brennan and her team have earned the respect of the deaf community and of all those who work in education.

The achievements of deaf pupils project has run for the past three and a half years. It was established in 2000 to collect detailed information about pupils and their achievements. The project is funded by the Scottish Executive, which is to be congratulated on its foresight in providing the initial funding and on continuing the funding. However, the decision to continue funding for only a single final year, until March 2005, is regrettable. I ask the minister to rethink the decision and I hope to give some reasons to support the continuation of funding in its present form or in an improved form.

The ADPS project is the only national long-term database that is based on annual surveys of deaf children in Europe. The only comparable database is based on the annual survey of deaf and hard of hearing children and youth that is undertaken by the Gallaudet research institute in Washington DC, which is part of a university for deaf people. For 30 years, the institute has undertaken research that has helped to shape educational provision for deaf and hard of hearing young people in the United States.

In Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, considerable concern has been felt for some time about the educational achievements of deaf pupils. Some evidence points to underachievement. There is no inherent reason why deaf children should not perform and achieve to the same levels as hearing children do. Of course, just as in the mainstream population, there are deaf children with physical or cognitive conditions.

The five to 14 national test results show that the number of deaf children who achieve level D in primary 7 lags well behind the number of their hearing peers. In 2001-02, 73 per cent of hearing children achieved level D in reading, but only 37 per cent of deaf children did. In the same year, 60 per cent of hearing children achieved level D in writing, whereas only 30 per cent of deaf children did. Also in that year, 69 per cent of hearing children achieved level D in mathematics, whereas only 29 per cent of deaf children did.

The statistics and the levels of underachievement among deaf children should concern every one of us. As deaf children become older, they fall further behind in literacy. That obviously has an increasingly negative effect on their access to the curriculum and their future chances in life.

From evidence that shows that the intelligence spectrum across the population of deaf children is similar to that across the population as a whole, we can conclude that the underachievement results not from the fact that the children cannot achieve but from the fact that in some way the system is failing them. For that reason, we need reliable research to explain the underachievement of deaf children—research that is trusted by the deaf community, children, parents, teachers and politicians. We need to examine the reasons for it and to plan and develop new strategies to ensure that we as policy makers do not fail deaf and hard of hearing young people but encourage and support them to have the same life chances as hearing children have and to achieve all that they can.

We know that the Scottish Executive is already committed to collecting data on Scottish pupils through the work of the Scottish exchange of educational data project—believe me, I found that easier to say than ScotXed. Its aims are comparable to those of the ADPS project, but its work is not the same and it is not collecting the same data or range of data. It is not collecting the data that are needed to identify key factors that influence the achievement of deaf pupils or the data that will allow us to monitor the effectiveness of educational provision. The low numbers of deaf children mean that wide variations in performance are likely, so patterns and trends are likely to emerge only over time. That is why we need the ADPS project to collect data over a long period.

New measures introduced by the Scottish Executive, such as newborn hearing screening, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill that the Parliament is considering and other policy developments are all developments in the right direction. However, those policies and their implementation will need to be monitored over time to gauge their impact. That is only one reason that the work of the ADPS project is necessary and can complement the work of ScotXed by providing highly detailed data on deaf children. We need only examine the project's findings to see how important its work has been and the support and dialogue that it has been able to develop with parents and teachers. I encourage all members to do just that. The ADPS project receives a tremendous response to its questionnaires, 99 per cent of which are returned. I have seen the questionnaires, which are not a light piece of work. As politicians, we wish that we could get the same return when we consult people.

The Scottish Executive took the lead in establishing and funding this very necessary project. The model is now being considered for use in other parts of the UK and Europe. We in Scotland must remain at the forefront of these developments. We must demonstrate our commitment to equality of access for each deaf child and must keep the expertise and trust that have been built up at the project. I urge the Scottish Executive to give continued support to the ADPS project, to work with the research team and to work to ensure that better and equal chances for deaf and hard of hearing young people become the norm.

There will be time for speeches of four minutes.

I wish to be the first to congratulate Cathie Craigie on lodging this motion for debate. This is an issue that needs to be explored and the case needs to be made for continuing to fund the ADPS project. I thank her for her speech. She has obviously done a great deal of work on and research into the issue.

I am not sure that my speech will reflect the same amount of research as Cathie Craigie's. I do not claim to be an expert in this area, but I suspect that my situation is the same as that of all members who are present. The issue of deafness is brought to us in our surgeries and constituency mail. We receive complaints about lack of audiology facilities, access to consultants, educational facilities and so on. There are many groups that work closely with the deaf, in all aspects of life. I think of Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, the meetings that I have had with representatives of the deaf society in my constituency and the fact that I have placed a textphone in my local office for the use of the deaf. That facility is open to all members and we should all use it.

This is the first debate that we have had on any form of deafness since a previous members' business debate on British Sign Language, which was led by my mother-in-law. I remember that the galleries were absolutely packed and that we had signers in the gallery and on the floor of the chamber itself. It is good that the subject has been kept on the agenda, because it is not one that should be allowed to slip away.

The debate today is about children in particular. Research collation is vital in reaching future diagnosis decisions. Having been a teacher, I believe that the accumulation of data is terribly important in relation to what we are trying to achieve with young people. A family services officer of the National Deaf Children's Society said:

"I have to say it is brilliant to actually have reliable statistics now and be able to use them to help plan our society's future."

That is the significance of the ADPS project, which I hope will continue.

The project is widely respected and highly regarded throughout Europe. Indeed, I understand that the UK Government was looking at the possibility of following the example of Scotland—that is interesting, given the previous debate—by setting up a similar project south of the border. Where we are achieving in this way, we should be proud to say, "This is a good idea and we are going to develop it," rather than take away the funding.

We received comments from parents and pupils as briefing for this debate, two of which I will read out. A parent said:

"ADPS is a crucial step forward in deaf education. We need the knowledge gained from the information collated to help both parents and professionals help our children towards having more control over their chosen destiny."

An ex-pupil said:

"I have been following the project since it started in 2000 and I think that the work that the team is doing is invaluable. I know from my own experience that it is important to keep track of your achievements and be encouraged to aim high."

Aiming high is what we are supposed to be about in this Scottish Parliament—aiming high for all our citizens in Scotland. Being a smart, successful Scotland means being an inclusive society. We must ensure that people are given equality from the beginning. I say to the minister that this Parliament is giving a clear warning that we do not want the project's funding to end. I believe that it will cease in March next year, so there is a year in which to rethink and aim high.

I thank the Presiding Officer for calling me early—I gave notice that I will have to leave to catch a train. I am sorry about that. I look forward to reading the rest of the debate, because it is on a subject that is dear to my heart. It is one of the things that I carried with me from my previous job as what I call a community paediatrician, but which is perhaps more recognisably called a school doctor. I had a particular interest in paediatric audiology and in deaf children, and there was a unit for deaf pupils in one of the schools for which I was responsible. I am interested in the subject, and I am glad that it is being debated.

On the phone this afternoon I checked with some of my former colleagues who are teachers for the deaf, and they said that the ADPS project has been well received by the profession. Indeed, one of our senior teachers from Highland was involved in the early stages in drawing up the project, so it is relevant even to areas such as Highland that have a sparse population and particular problems in delivering services to deaf pupils.

As Cathie Craigie said, the form filling is onerous. A great big, thick wodge of paper comes in for the initial assessment, although apparently the updates are not so bad. However, staff feedback has been good and the in-service training from Moray House has been well received.

I do not want to pre-empt any data that might come out of the project, but a teacher told me that although one would instinctively think that the profoundly deaf pupils would be the ones who would achieve the least, the feedback shows that that is not always the case. Some of the severely deaf pupils—who are less deaf, in other words—have had lower levels of achievement. That might be partly to do with their receiving less support. The message must be advanced, particularly in the forthcoming review of support for learning, that support is a big issue.

Deaf pupils are labour intensive, but that labour is rewarding, so it is well worth while. There is no other way round the issue: we need signing learning support auxiliaries, which means that auxiliaries must be trained to be signers, and we need teachers of the deaf. In Highland, where there might be one pupil in a remote area—I know of two—teachers of the deaf have to travel to support staff who must be trained up to be deaf aware. There must be deaf awareness in schools at all levels, from staff to pupils. Much work is involved in providing for deaf pupils, but it is worth while.

The other point that Cathie Craigie raised that I will pick up on is the wide variation among deaf pupils. Now with my medical hat on, I point out that we are increasingly seeing young children who have deafness as part of a constellation of difficulties. Many of them are survivors of extreme prematurity, who need a multidisciplinary team. From talking to my former colleagues, I know that multidisciplinary teams in Highland meet fortnightly to discuss how they are working with pupils, which is important.

When I started my previous job in community child health in Highland 16 years ago, there was a history of deaf pupils having to leave the area for education to go on residential placements in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and there was only a small unit attached to the primary and secondary schools in Dingwall. Increasingly, we have moved away from that, and it is now normal for pupils to stay at home throughout their school career and to be provided for locally. As I said, that means that resources must be available. We cannot have economies of scale with small numbers in a scattered population. However, the service must still be delivered, because deaf pupils merit it.

An important point to consider in relation to all special needs children is the fact that the handover to adult services is always problematic. People might have received a lot of support at school age, but when they leave school and perhaps go to college, the support is just not there anymore. Many of our kids in Highland still go off to Doncaster College or Derby College for their post-school education and training. There are local colleges, and if support were provided in them, perhaps more kids could stay at home.

I welcome the debate and the on-going monitoring of the achievements of deaf children academically and socially. I hope that there will be a commitment to carry out such monitoring long term and that it will not be carried out in an atmosphere of uncertainty, which would undermine the professionals who are so dedicated and who put so much into their work.

Cathie Craigie is to be congratulated warmly on her success in introducing this subject for debate, given that it is so important. It comes in the wake of a debate that we had some years ago on the need to have funding for more sign language teachers, on which I hope that appropriate action has been taken.

The achievements of deaf pupils in Scotland project was established in October 2000 to create a database of accurate information on deaf pupils in Scotland. Before that, statistics and information on deaf pupils were often partial and inaccurate. Such statistics were presented to the Scottish Parliament and portrayed an unrealistic view.

ADPS in the only project of its kind in the United Kingdom and is comparable only to a project that the Gallaudet research institute in Washington DC carried out. That puts the project and Scotland very much at the forefront of deaf education globally. As Cathie Craigie has rightly said, initial findings have indicated that deaf children are underachieving, so surely it is vital for the Executive to continue the funding and to assess what needs to be done and where and why it needs to be done. There seems little point in identifying underachievement and then failing to act upon it by ceasing funding.

ADPS has worked hard to forge strong links with local authorities, professionals, parents and deaf pupils. Local authorities use the information to plan for provision and to allocate resources more effectively, so saving funds in the long term, while parents and professionals use the research to set realistic targets in a way that best helps children to achieve their full potential. The enthusiasm for and commitment of parents and professionals to the project is highlighted by the fact that a staggering 99 per cent of people who were given questionnaires returned them.

However, ADPS is not a quick-fix initiative. The needs, achievements and performance of deaf pupils will change and must be monitored over time. If important patterns and trends are to be found and statistics are to be compiled, longer-term funding from the Executive is essential. The Executive should consider the importance, impact and global standing of the achievements of ADPS. It is not only a valuable tool in the identification of groundbreaking research; it is a unique and exciting project of great importance well beyond Scotland. The results and information collated can be used not only to contribute to the Executive's policy decisions and developments but to lead the way forward and to set new examples in equality and access for all deaf children.

Cathie Craigie is most certainly right on this matter and deserves strong support in this cause. Some years ago, I learned about an elderly man who was given his hearing for the first time through cochlear implants, which completely transformed that person's life. I feel that being hard of hearing can be a substantial disadvantage to young people and we should do everything in our power to help them.

I hope that the minister will give an extremely positive response.

I congratulate Cathie Craigie on securing the debate. I know that, along with others, she has raised deaf issues tirelessly since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The debate deals with a practical manifestation of how we can address the needs of deaf people in Scotland.

I have some awareness of the work of ADPS, although I would not profess to be an expert. I am happy to add my support to Cathie Craigie's motion because a great deal of the work that ADPS does chimes well with the aims and aspirations of the Scottish Parliament and complements the work that the Scottish Executive seeks to take forward. It is important that politicians continually try to turn our rhetoric into reality, and part of the rhetoric of this Parliament and the Executive since 1999 has been that we must work to give every child in Scotland the best possible start in life. We do not say "some children", we say "every child", and that includes deaf children and other children with conditions or disabilities that might otherwise limit their ability to fulfil their potential.

What is exciting about the work that ADPS has done is that it is starting to get to the bottom of why deaf children under-attain when that should not necessarily be the case. It is just beginning to explore what can be done to avoid such under-attainment in future. That is enormously exciting. We have the potential to make a difference to the lives of people in this country.

The Executive has particular reasons to want the project to continue its work. It has a good track record in taking action that will benefit deaf young people and other people who are deaf and who have hearing problems. However, it is important that we keep track of how effective such policy changes have been. In a former life, I was involved in some of the early decisions to extend cochlear implantation and to introduce hearing tests for newly born children. We need to know what impact those policy changes and investments are having over time.

ADPS is quite unusual in being a project that can feed into Government policy on a continuing basis and give feedback and evidence to inform future decisions and to tell us what has been successful in the past. Therefore, there are very good reasons why the Executive should want to continue to support and develop the project.

Finally, I get concerned about the short-term nature of much of our thinking in so many areas. Part of that is because of the world in which we live and the pressure that we are all under to come up with quick fixes. As we all know, quick fixes rarely exist. We can make a difference and track the differences that have been made only over time. What is striking about ADPS's work is that it has put in place a longitudinal study, which—by definition—must and should be able to continue into the future to give us a clear picture of trends. It would be wasteful, if not daft, to have to reinvent such a project in future to answer the very questions that ADPS is just beginning to be able to answer.

From the knowledge that I have of the project, I think that real progress is being made. It supports and complements the aims and aspirations of the Parliament and of the Executive and can add value to policy development and its implementation now and in the future. Critically, it can make a difference to the lives of deaf young people now and in the future. The project has the confidence and the trust of parents, professionals and deaf young people. Not many projects can say that with impunity. It is important that the project is supported and encouraged into the future.

I, too, congratulate Cathie Craigie on securing the debate and on all the hard work that she has done with deaf people in the Parliament and through the cross-party group, which has done tremendous work.

I was very concerned when I learned about the loss of funding for the project. After looking at the papers, I can only concur with what every member who has spoken before me has said about the good work that is done by the project. The statistics that were quoted by Cathie Craigie are proof that the project should continue, especially because of its emphasis on information gathering and sharing. That type of information is invaluable for the future, not just for the present. The project has turned around the statistics on underachievement and has been able to take evidence from various areas and from research that has been done and put it into practice. That is what we are looking towards: putting ideas into practice for the benefit of all deaf people.

Cathie Craigie talked about the response to the questionnaires. There was a 99.4 per cent return from schools, which is fantastic—that level of response would put a Scottish election to shame. That shows that the public, the schools and the deaf community take such work very seriously. Those people are willing to take part in that type of research; we do not always get that willingness, so we should not lose it once we have it. They are very keen that the project should continue, and so are those who are in the chamber. I ask the minister to take the statistics on board.

I will tell members about a deaf person who I have known for a long time. He was, and still is, a fantastic artist, and was probably the loudest, most outgoing and sociable person in our group. When it came to saying what we wanted to do when we left school, he chose architecture. This was more than 40 years ago and many deaf people will identify with what I am about to say. He did not have the recommended qualifications to pursue that career. That was not because he was not talented, but because, at that time, not enough was done to encourage deaf people to get those qualifications. I still go out for a drink with him and, although he has had various jobs, he is not bitter; he is a very happy person. However, when I speak to him, I think what a loss he has been to our society and what a shame it is that such a talented person did not get the opportunities that hearing people got just because he was deaf. That is why it is so important to continue the ADPS project.

There are probably many who have passed through schools who, like Dennis and others—now that I have said his name, he will never forgive me—have much to give to society but cannot contribute in the way that they would like to because the help that projects of this type provide is lacking. On behalf of all the pupils who attend those schools and who desperately want to fulfil their potential, I ask the minister to continue the funding. Even if the funding were continued for just another year, we could see how things go from there. Too many people's lives are at stake. I appeal to the minister to continue the project's funding.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. I had the opportunity to meet Cathie Craigie and her colleagues on the cross-party group on deafness only a few months ago, when we had a useful and wide-ranging discussion of the issues. There is no doubting the group's commitment, in particular to developing and improving educational services for hearing-impaired children. Like Susan Deacon and others, I pay tribute to the work that Cathie Craigie has done as convener of the cross-party group. She has laboured long and hard and is a considerable campaigner on deaf people's behalf.

The Executive shares the commitment of the cross-party group. Over the years, we have sought to improve provision for deaf children and young people in various ways. We share the concern of Cathie Craigie and the cross-party group that deaf children's achievement should develop and improve. That is a key issue.

Our general policies of encouraging inclusion where it is in the child's best interests, promoting better access to schools and to the curriculum and providing more resources for staff development and training all serve to support deaf education as well as the wider provision for those with additional support needs.

As Cathie Craigie rightly said, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill aims to modernise and strengthen the current system for supporting children's learning needs by building on and complementing developments in Scotland's educational system and by promoting the wider agenda of integrating and improving children's services.

We provide specific support for deaf education. We continue to provide substantial funding to Donaldson's College, which is perhaps the most significant specialist centre for deaf education in Scotland. We will soon consult on new regulations covering specialist qualifications for teachers who deal mainly with children who suffer from sensory impairments.

Through our innovation grants programme, which is now called the unified fund, we have supported a range of deaf education projects and organisations that promote the interests of all who are involved in the education of hearing-impaired children. For example, some members may be familiar with the CD-ROM "Stories in the Air", the production of which we funded to encourage the development of basic sign language between very young hearing-impaired children and their parents.

We provide important core funding for the Scottish sensory centre, which is a national source of advice, guidance and training for teachers and others who work with pupils with sensory impairments.

In addition, since October 2000, we have funded the achievements of deaf pupils in Scotland project, which is the subject of tonight's motion. That funding will continue for another year. It was originally intended that the funding would cease at the end of March 2004, but £85,000 was found for the year to the end of March 2005.

We began funding the ADPS project almost four years ago because we recognised the need to obtain more accurate information on the numbers of deaf pupils in Scotland and their attainments. Such information will be used to help pupils, parents and teachers to identify where improvements are required and to enable steps to be taken to improve the quality of provision. By March 2005, almost £470,000 will have been spent on the project.

When the research project began, analysis of the attainment of pupils with a hearing impairment was simply not possible. A specific research project was the only way in which such information could be obtained, and that was why the Scottish sensory centre was funded to begin the work.

Euan Robson said that £470,000 would be the total expenditure over the four-year period. Where does that fit in as a percentage of the budget that is available to the Executive? It seems to me like a drop in the ocean among all the other moneys that are available.

In a budget of some billions, it is indeed a small percentage, but clearly it is a significant sum of money, given the cost of the research project, and it has made a significant impact because we have valued the work that has been carried out.

Since the project began, the Executive has made a great deal of progress with its own statistical collections. The annual school census has changed fairly significantly, from a paper form of summary information filled in by the head teacher to an individual-level download from the school's management information system. That enables local authorities and the Executive to identify pupils with various difficulties, including hearing impairment. When that information is linked to individual data from the Scottish Qualifications Authority, attendance records, information on free school meals entitlement and so on, it will soon be possible to carry out centrally much—but, I agree, not all—of the analysis that is performed by the ADPS project.

The national collection of five-to-14 data is under review at present. However, whatever the outcome of that consultation, it will be possible for local authorities to continue to monitor the performance of the hearing impaired at any given level. It may also be possible to ensure that whatever replaces the national collection of five-to-14 data will enable the analysis of pupils with such difficulties.

We agree totally that the accumulation of data about deaf pupils is vital—that is why we put the money into the ADPS project. We are not stepping back from a commitment to the accumulation of the data. We will collect the data through the ScotXed programme and continue to monitor the achievement of deaf pupils, for the reasons that I have given. We do not want teachers to have to continue to complete large-scale questionnaires, but we feel that that will not be necessary, given the changes that have been made to our own data collection.

We recognise that the way in which data are currently collected through the electronic school census does not pick up all pupils with hearing impairments, but only those for whom it is the main difficulty in learning. However, we have started discussing changes to the census specification for 2005 in order to identify all such pupils. We will also ask the ADPS team to work with us and with local authorities to assist in the handover from the research project stage to the central monitoring stage, to ensure that all such pupils are picked up.

In short, we want to help to manage the process of transition, and that is why I ensured that funding would continue for another year, but not after March 2005. We have been discussing today only pupils with hearing impairment. In future, as I have described, the Executive will be able to monitor all groups of disabilities, including visual impairments, motor impairments, autism and so on. That will be a great improvement from the previous need to set up specific research projects in every area.

Life has moved on from when we started in 2000. We have valued immensely the work that has been done and we remain committed to improving the performance of deaf children and to monitoring that progress closely, but we will not be able to continue the funding after March 2005.

Meeting closed at 17:39.