The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

16. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO FURTHER EDUCATION

16.1. ASSESSMENT

16.1.1. THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The BRITE Centre is responsible for building the capacity of Scottish further education colleges to identify 'technological support needs' of students with additional needs (including deaf students) and to 'implement support strategies', particularly in relation to assistive technology. Although the focus is on technology, BRITE also take into account access requirements and services relating to access/support professionals.

The BRITE Centre aims to train at least one learning support co-ordinator (or equivalent title) in each college, to assess access and support requirements and to facilitate appropriate services and resources. The BRITE Centre website lists participating colleges ( http://www.brite.ac.uk/resources.htm ).

The training covers a wide variety of types of additional need and encourages assessors to be open in attitude. Assessors are encouraged to use the framework provided by the Quality Indicators for Assessment Needs Toolkit (Disabled Students Stakeholder Group, 2005).

However, as the training and toolkit both cover such a wide range of student groups, there is inevitably little detail on the complexities of deaf student linguistic access requirements. Therefore the depth and nature of assessment is very dependent on the knowledge and experience which an individual assessor already has, and wide variations between colleges are reported, in both assessments and in budget management. For example, inexperienced assessors are unlikely to understand the reasons why a deaf student may have subject aptitude and ability but not have the required level of English - and consequently may initiate inappropriate strategies for addressing this. Also, they may not fully understand that students coming straight from school will not always have experience of - or be aware of - the full range of access services which are available.

Brennan et al's study, in 2005, highlighted the need for a supplementary set of indicators to address the complexities of deaf students' situations, in line with the NATED assessment pack mentioned in 11.1.1., above. It is understood that the BRITE Centre is currently collaborating over the possible development of such a supplementary toolkit.

One college, which attracts a high proportion of deaf students, reported that they have always managed to find funding for the best access services they can provide for each deaf student. Assessment is undertaken by an assessor with experience in working with deaf students. Funding is initially approved by the head of Support for Learning, and ratified by the Vice Principal. As a contrast it was reported that some other colleges do not find a way to provide funding and tell students that they need to approach charities to fund their access services. There is also anecdotal evidence that some deaf students are simply not being assessed at all.

It was not possible, within this study, to explore how well colleges provide linguistic access to the assessment process itself but, again, it is likely that this will depend on the knowledge and experience of key staff within the individual college: one college with a specialist background reported that they ensure that linguistic/communication requirements are checked before interviews and that appropriate access services are provided.

16.1.2. ASSESSMENT AND FUNDING

The current situation

Mainstream provision

Students indicate their deafness on the college application form and this information is passed on to the learning support co-ordinator (although, as noted above, there is evidence that information does not get passed on in some circumstances). The assessment process is expected to be paid for through SFC core funding.

If the learning support co-ordinator assesses that access services are needed, they apply to SFC for Extended Learning Support, which is a weighting mechanism.

Simplistically, the weighting is 1.5, but there are a number of variables within the formula used to calculate the actual amount of additional money paid to the college. Appendix 6 contains detail of the how the calculation is worked out; the information was supplied by the SFC statistics department to assist this study.

This type of system means that the amount of money paid to the college for access services and resources is not dependent on the estimated cost of actual access services required, but on the type and length of the course. As can be seen from one of the examples in Appendix 1, the college would receive an extra £5,700 to cover the cost of access services for a deaf student on a full-time science course.

This is well below the cost of employing a full-time electronic notetaking service or a full time BSL/English interpreter - and sometimes a student would require both at once. There is also the Additional Support Needs for Learning Allowance which provides additional support towards study and travel related expenses to student who incur additional personal expenditure as a result of their disability. This funding is available to student who are receiving ELS.

The ELS weighting system in FE means that funding for deaf students is always going to be dependant to some extent on subsidy from other sources - in particular from surplus amounts where student needs are less expensive than the additional ELS amount paid to the college. Because of this, it is likely to be harder for smaller colleges to 'balance the books'.

As a contrast, as will be explained in a later section, the DSA funding for deaf HE students is calculated on the basis of an estimate of the actual costs of the specific services required by an individual student.

It is unclear how far individual colleges are able to claim bursary amounts to supplement individual funding for deaf students, under the category of 'study support': http://www.sfc.ac.uk/information/info_circulars/sfc/2007/sfc1407/GuidanceBursaries.pdf

'Discrete' provision

Some deaf students may also be registered on courses which attract a different sort of funding, known as ' DG18' funding. This applies to separate provision for students with learning difficulties. It is still weighted, but on the basis of 1.8 rather than the 1.5 of ELS. As noted already, it is not clear how far this includes courses which are designed for deaf students, rather than for students with a cognitive learning disability (eg adult literacy courses for deaf people; courses for tutors of sign language etc).

The 'needs-led' pilot and ELS

Until now, the assessor has needed to categorise the student as being 'deaf/hearing impaired' to trigger this funding. At the time of writing, a new system of 'needs-led assessments' is being piloted in 10 colleges. The aim is to bring the framework of assessment into line with those used in schools and in HE. This means that ELS funding will not be triggered simply by categorising a student as deaf/hearing impaired, but by the fact that access services are required.

However, the ELS funding mechanism, and therefore the issues of funding shortfall, as just described, will remain the same.

Number of deaf students attracting ELS funding

Table 22 shows that remarkably low percentages of deaf students are attracting ELS funding. In 9.2., above, it was demonstrated that colleges which have traditionally provided specific services for deaf students in the past are not attracting higher percentages of deaf students now, compared to other colleges. However, the ELS table demonstrates that two colleges particularly known for providing specialised services for deaf students, Motherwell and Glasgow Metropolitan, have the highest proportions of ELS funding for deaf students. As a contrast, the colleges with the highest numbers of deaf students have few or no students with ELS funding.

It may be that some colleges are providing access but finding other sources of funding (such as individual bursary funding from the SFC [from the Scottish Funding Council, 2007b:33]), but the dearth of ELS funding in many colleges may indicate that colleges with less knowledge about deafness are less likely to provide access services to deaf students.

Worthy of further investigation is the fact that further detail of the statistics show that of those receiving ELS funding, 13 were HND students, and therefore eligible for DSA.

Table 22 Deaf/ HIFE student enrolments and additional funded hours under ELS in 2005/06

* ELS = Extended Learning Support

16.1.2. QUALITY CONTROL OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND OF ACCESS/SUPPORT PROVISION

The 10 colleges in the needs-led pilot have, apparently, opted not to use the Quality Indicator toolkit, preferring instead to use the individual professional judgement of Support for Learning staff within each college. As has been demonstrated, the situation is already geographically variable for deaf students, given the lack of quality indicators relating to deafness. It could be argued that adding more subjectivity to the process is likely to further exacerbate the variability.

At the time of writing, the SFC and the 10 colleges are negotiating these issues. The colleges have suggested that concerns about geographic variation will be addressed by the HMIE reviews, as they include review of the use of students Personal Learning and Support Plans ( PLSPs). However, reviews are undertaken infrequently, and examples of inspections on website invariably focus solely on physical and technical aspects of accessibility for disabled students - therefore not apparently address the quality of linguistic access provided to deaf students ( http://www.hmie.gov.uk ).

Interview respondents reported varying examples of monitoring and review procedures. There was an indication that written forms may often be the main means of eliciting views, rather than individual review meetings. In some institutions, the learning support staff to student ratio may be so high that regular, individual attention is impossible. However, it can be argued that the distinctive nature of deaf students' situations creates the need for a standard review procedure which is specifically-tailored, and which involves 1:1 monitoring meetings. The NATED assessment process builds in such reviews at regular intervals during the course.

16.1.3. UNMET NEED

The statistics do not show a higher withdrawal rate for deaf students compared to all students. Nevertheless, there is much anecdotal evidence of deaf students being put off attending further education because of lack of resources.

Although discrimination legislation covers admissions, one school/ FE transition worker reported that it was 'quite common', in their experience, for individual colleges to tell deaf young people that they can only have a place if an interpreter can be found.

16.2. UNMET NEED SQA EXAMINATIONS

Some issues relating to SQA examinations within schools also apply to further education situations ( see latter sub-sections of 10.9.2., above ( SQA assessment policy; accessibility of English in SQA exams; signed questions and responses).

16.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

• There is a need for specialist support tutors for deaf students, to address English language issues specific to the situations of deaf learners.
• A supplementary ' QI Toolkit', along the lines of the NATED pack, is needed to address the complexities of assessing deaf students' linguistic access requirements. A centralised resource for advice and information would help to ensure consistency across colleges.
• All colleges should ensure that access requirements for assessment interviews are checked out, and that relevant arrangements are made.
• There is a need for consistent practice in ensuring that information on disclosed hearing loss is passed on to learning support teams.
• The wide variation among colleges in proportions of deaf students receiving ELS funding should be further investigated.
• In particular, it may be the case that colleges with less knowledge about deafness are providing less access services to deaf students. This could be explored, although all further education colleges who provide HE level courses should be aware that HE students can apply for DSA funding. Students undertaking a HE course at college would apply to SAAS for their fees and any maintenance support for which they may be eligible, during this process information is made available as to the purpose of the DSA allowance.
• There is a need to address the fact that there is likely to be a considerable shortfall between the amount of weighted ELS funding and the cost of providing linguistic access, where LSPs and specialist support tutors are involved.
• All further education colleges who provide HE-level courses should be aware that HE students can apply for DSA funding.
• There needs to be a robust means of monitoring the quality of assessments and of linguistic access provided through the lifetime of the courses provided across Scotland. HMIE need to take into account the complexities of linguistic access for deaf students during college reviews.
• There is anecdotal evidence that deaf students can be deterred from attending further education provision due to poor resourcing of courses. A fuller investigation of unmet need would shed further light on this.

SQA examinations (as per school section)

• The results of the forthcoming SQA 'impact assessment' of exam access are likely to lead to improvements in a number of ways, including accessibility of English. It will be interesting to keep in touch with developments.
• Ongoing work is needed on the practice and standardisation of the provision of signed questions in exams. It is hoped that SQA takes on board the expressed concerns about the use of Avatar 'signers'.

« Previous | Contents | Next »