The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

THE LINGUISTIC ACCESS CONTEXT FOR DEAF PUPILS AND STUDENTS IN SCOTLAND

3. LANGUAGE APPROACHES USED WITH DEAF PUPILS IN SCOTLAND

Deaf Education/Hearing Impairment Services across the UK offer an array of specific approaches, the labels for which can sometimes be confusing. Further details on the UK situation can be found at: BATOD (2006), Gregory (2005) and Gregory et al (1998).

The Achievements of Deaf Pupils in Scotland ( ADPS) project collected information on language approaches used with individual pupils and language policies of services up to (2000/2005). Appendix 1 uses this data to summarise the languages and language modes included in approaches used in Scotland. These approaches, as with the rest of the UK, can be divided into monolingual and bilingual groupings.

Tables 1 and 2 provide detail on the approaches used in Scotland between 2001 and 2005 as the basis of service policies (also ADPS data). The term 'service' is used to denote 45 administratively autonomous services, among 32 local authorities, which could be schools for deaf children, units within mainstream schools or visiting services. Where a visiting service represents a whole local authority's provision, this is noted.

3.1. MONOLINGUAL APPROACHES

There are a number of English-only approaches, which are based on the premise that deaf children and hearing children develop language in the same way. It has traditionally been accepted that there is likely to be some language delay (Brennan, 1999), although the impact of Universal Newborn Hearing Screening ( UNHS) and developments in early cochlear implantation are being monitored carefully by a large-scale UK research project (Positive Support, 2007). Interventions are focused on enhancing access to spoken language, including the use of technology to maximise audition. Approaches vary in the extent to which they include the use of visual cues, such as lipreading and individual signs. Table 1 lists the monolingual approaches used in Scotland, ordered by the degree to which they use visual cues - least first (source ADPS). It shows that a minority of services reported a monolingual approach, and no local authorities reported exclusion of the use of visual cues in their full provision.

Table 1

** Sign Supported English is used here to mean the use of spoken English, reinforced by some sign vocabulary. Individual signs, but not grammatical features, are borrowed from BSL.

It is expected that specialist staff who support the development of spoken English will facilitate a rich linguistic environment, requiring competency in assessment of spoken language and literacy development. Competencies are also required in areas such as applied audiology and in the assessment of, and facilitation of access to, spoken and written English. Staff who work within specific monolingual philosophies are also likely to receive training and resources from relevant independent organisations.

3.2. BILINGUAL APPROACHES

In the UK, a declared sign bilingual approach, defined by the Sign Bilingual Consortium (Swanwick and Gregory, 2007), is based on the premise that deaf children's linguistic aptitudes and linguistic/cultural requirements are more diverse than those of hearing children. It recognises a distinction between deaf and hearing communities and between British Sign Language ( BSL) and English; it assumes individual, planned language routes for curriculum access, with the relative dominance of British Sign Language ( BSL) or English dependant upon ongoing assessment. The employment of deaf staff is seen as vital.

Bilingual approaches are a relatively recent development and it is only latterly that significant funding has become available for research and development in this area. Flexible use of terminology leads to an apparent overlap with a version of 'Total Communication' ( TC) that includes some degree of BSL: more information is needed before it is possible to identify the extent to which the distinctive philosophical and practice base of such a TC approach is akin to that of sign bilingualism. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, in practice, variations in terminology may sometimes be pragmatically related to limitations in available BSL-related resources, in terms of staff BSL skills and of assessment tools.

For these reasons, Table 2 embraces both sign bilingual and TC approaches which include BSL to some extent. The table shows that, while a minority of services (including three local authorities) report a sign bilingual approach, a large proportion of local authorities declare some degree of bilingualism in their language and communication policies.

TABLE 2

As with any other bilingual framework, a sign-bilingual approach requires the provision of rich linguistic resources in both languages, including staff competency in assessment of pupil linguistic aptitudes and abilities. Implementing individualised programmes entails availability of staff skilled in supporting spoken and written language development (as per the monolingual approach, above) as well as staff with similarly high levels of skill in BSL, and its development and assessment. Interpreting skills are also required by those providing in-class English/ BSL interpretation in mainstream. As described above, the extent to which individual TC services in this category manifest characteristics of sign-bilingualism, is unclear from the available data.

3.3. 'NO SPECIFIC POLICY'

Between 2000 and 2005 almost a fifth of Scottish deaf children were supported by services declaring 'no specific policy' in relation to language and communication; most noted that they aim to meet the individual requirements of all children with additional needs.

3.4. REGIONAL VARIATION

A recent article used ADPS data to explore the relationship between language approaches with individual pupils, service policies and staff qualifications. While the article indicated that local authorities reported a desire to provide a child-centred approach to language(s)/ language mode(s) use with individual children, it demonstrated regionally-variable spectrums of choice in terms of resources available. One of its conclusions was that the breadth of linguistic options available to deaf children and their families may have been determined more by the region in which they were educated than by their specific linguistic requirements (Grimes et al, 2007:546). Later sections in this report will explore this issue further.

« Previous | Contents | Next »